Similar posts

rATnA #fundie profile.myspace.com

[A continuation of the above post. Responding to, "I don't know what you're on, but being pro-choice is about supporting a person's right to make their own medical procedures. You wouldn't talk like this if the subject were a person's right to consent to open-heart surgery or taking insulin.]

I'm on the love that spun the original hydrogen carbon and nitrogen into place....

....and all i do is collect data like Edwin Hubble. I have no lofty opinions to impose on people. I don't babble in theories or messy opinions. All i do is gather data. Raw, accurrate, retestable, observable data is all that we need to know.

I dream of "hot air balloon" perspectives so that I can see past the walls that limit our perspectives.

There is no set 'yes or no' answer to anybody's definition of consent in any medical situation.

I like how you said that pro-choice and pro-abortion are not the same. I am advocating for a return to Mother Earth's crystallization-free natural order, although i don't "advocate" it for anybody but myself, and sometimes i like to let other people know what I'm doing if I think its relevant, and i let you know because maybe you care, maybe not, my guess is yes.......? Anyways can pro-choice be pro-life and pro-abortion at the same time? Yes. But also, pro-choice can be pro-life and anti-abortion at the same time too in perhaps another situation too.......so to say "I'm pro choice" is a crystallization that is fake because even though you are for the rights of the woman, perhaps in some distant situation that might change to include the rights of the natural order of Mother Earth to produce more children because contrary to most pro-choice peoples' world view, many people who come from bad, disadvantaged childhoods end up growing into the most successful adults of all because of the extra challenges, and also, one day I will open a huge school for "unwanted" children and I can almost garuantee you that after time in my school the original parents will want their kids back because i will teach them how to be highly successful by collecting/organizing/analyzing data instead of reading books about other peoples' data-collection adventures...............and how can something that mimics seretonin help the brain produce natural serotonin correctly? What happened to the Natural Order of Mother Earth? How can so many different drugs be "generally recognized as safe" and yet harm the mitochondria that power all cells?

David Crank #fundie unlessthelordmagazine.com

Birth Control in America. Birth control was first popularized in America by a few women's rights advocates in the early 1900s. Most prominent and influential was Margaret Sanger, founder of the "Birth Control Federation of America" which later became "Planned Parenthood" - a more pro-family sounding name which helped improve the acceptability of birth control. Of course Planned Parenthood was never about truly planning to be a parent - it was about planning how NOT to be a parent or to have as few children as possible.

Prior to this time, birth control was almost universally rejected by Christians in America. It was viewed as being sinful and interfering with God. Most Christians held to the same views as the great Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.). These same views clearly dated back at least as far as the early church fathers.

But in Europe in the previous century, Malthus had argued the dangers of overpopulation. Others had joined him in concern that the lower classes were breeding too rapidly, damaging the genetic stock of their nations! Birth control was first advocated primarily for the poor, but it was the rich and the immoral who really saw its value. When Margaret Sanger began her association with these European free thinkers, much of the “right to choose” she was personally looking for was the right to choose infidelity and immorality without fear of resulting pregnancy. She made very full use of her new rights in spite of her marriage.

Are many "Pro-Life" Christians more "Pro-Choice" than they think? The "Pro-Choice" position is that every woman has the right to choose for herself whether or not to have a baby. The "Pro-Life" position is one of giving babies a chance for life outside the womb.

Though most Christians consider themselves "Pro-Life" and are clearly anti-abortion, many seem close to the "Pro-Choice" camp in what they believe and actually practice. Though generally denying a choice for an abortion, many will insist that every woman does have the right and the responsibility to choose for herself, if and when she will have a baby.

Most Christians today wholeheartedly endorse this right to choose, that is championed by the “Pro-Choice” groups. The difference is that most Christians believe the choice is already made, intentional or not, once conception has occurred. But the "Pro-Choice" groups maintain that the right to choose continues up to the point of birth. Focusing only on the woman’s rights, this seems a logical end for this viewpoint. If every woman has a fundamental right to choose whether she will have a child, what difference is there whether she prevents it's life from starting or if failing that she ends its life before it is born? Either way there is one less life and she has avoided the birth experience and any subsequent responsibility for the child. [Yes, in the one instance a life is destroyed - murdered. But from their point of view, what is the difference? In both instances the birth does not take place. They don’t see such a big difference between preventing the birth at the point of conception or doing so shortly thereafter.]

Though Christians are mostly opposed to abortion, some favor certain exceptions such as rape or incest. Others fail to realize the fact that certain forms of birth control are also producing early abortions. Increasingly Christians are becoming aware of how these forms of birth control actually work and avoiding them. But you can be very anti-abortion without being very pro-life. Few are pro-life in the sense of granting life in the first place, by encouraging as many children as God will provide or seeking to raise as many children for the Lord as possible.
Uncomfortable Similarity. Now I know some of this sounds really hard, comparing advocates of birth control with advocates of abortion. Of course there is a difference. With abortion an already living child is murdered. With birth control, the gift of life is mostly never given in the first place. The point is to get you to think about the uncomfortable similarity between the abortionists and many Christians who believe in birth control. Consider that the same people who finally convinced the churches to accept and even advocate birth control are those who also have championed abortion, immorality and a good many other things contrary to God's Word.

Jonathan Van Maren #fundie lifesitenews.com

Argentina pro-life leader: Activists are using little pregnant girls to push legal abortion

March 8, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Last August, following the stunning upset victory of pro-lifers in Argentina, who fended off the legalization of abortion by a mere handful of votes in the senate, I intervieweda prominent Argentinian pro-life activist to discuss how the pro-life movement mobilized millions of people and what their strategy was going forward. Earlier in 2018, over three million pro-lifers had marched in the streets to demand that the government maintain protection for pre-born children in the womb, and tens of thousands took to the streets in celebration when the senatevoted narrowly against legalizing abortion. Buenos Aires became a joyful sea of blue handkerchiefs, the powerful symbol of the pro-life movement.

Pro-life activists have been preparing for the next assault on protections for pre-born children ever since, with many left-wing politicians promising to legalize abortion by other means. Abortion activists have also been seeking a difficult and tragic case to utilize in the media and build national and international support for their agenda, similar to what took place in Ireland in 1992 with the ‘X’ case. Earlier this month, an 11-year-old rape victim gave birth via C-section, apparently after requesting an abortion several times. Doctors worked to save both lives, and the abortion was refused because of complications over the girl’s guardianship.

The media is deceitfully implying — or outright claiming — that Argentina’s pro-life laws prevented this girl from getting an abortion in order to attack protections for pre-born children as cruel. Most of the international headlines state that “Argentina refused 11-year-old rape victim an abortion,” or something to that effect. In fact, abortion is actually legal in Argentina in the case of rape, and there was no law preventing the girl, who has been dubbed “Lucia” for privacy reasons, from getting an abortion. Rather, this was a complex case involving the girl’s family situation and other factors—but that, of course, interferes with the media’s preferred narrative that scores of underage rape victims are being forced to give birth because of Argentina’s pro-life laws.


To discuss what comes next for Argentina’s pro-life movement, which has suffered every slander imaginable from the international media over the past several weeks, I spoke with Camilo Duro, a 24-year-old pro-lifer working on the ground with the organization Frente Joven, a pro-life NGO that “seeks to reduce maternal and infant mortality by addressing its main causes [and] providing support to women with pregnancies at risk.” Frente Joven was also one of the leading organizations fighting the legalization of abortion last year.

"What is currently going on in Argentina?"

Today we have no idea what's going to happen undoubtedly because "the green side" is handling a communication operation. They're using a new hashtag "#NiñasNoMadres" (#GirlsNotMothers) and the media are [spreading] news of little girls pregnant, eleven or twelve years old, victims of sexual abuse. They're putting local governments and public opinion under pressure. Actually, the last two cases had the same result: premature cesarean between 23 and 25 weeks. One of the babies already died after a few days of life, and the last one, Faustina, is fighting for her life.

An abortion bill will be presented at the end of March. We have our big March for Life in two weeks, on March 23, [for] the Day of the Unborn Child. Two million people are expected to attend throughout the country.

"After last year's pro-life victory, do these latest events threaten to bring abortion to Argentina once again?"

Yes, it's not over. We are organized and giving options to our politicians to fight this inside Congress. The abortion bill is yet to come, so we're waiting. Meanwhile, we're thinking about a new communication campaign to reinforce our slogan "Save Both Lives.

"What is the pro-life movement doing to respond to what is happening?"

This week we announced a new free telephone line to help vulnerable pregnant women. We're working on a new sexual education plan, without gender ideology or promotion of early sexuality. In fact, we have five teams working on different tasks.

"What is the abortion movement's strategy?"

They want to pressure local governments to apply an illegitimate protocol created during the presidency of Cristina Kirchner. That protocol enables [women] to have an abortion in three cases: rape or sexual abuse, health risk (not life risk, just health, so they use "psychological health" as an excuse) or mental disability of the pregnant woman. But neverthelessit will probably [gain support] in Congress.

"What do we in North America need to know that the media is not telling us?"

First, we need our support throughout social networks. We're giving information through Twitter, Facebook andInstagram. Every week "Unidad Provida" is using a new hashtag to inform or to repudiate the big media fake news. It is also very important to know that we have an election year, and there's no pro-life candidate yet. It is a huge problem and pro-life people, especially inside the country, are showing disagreement [with the pro-abortion crowd] on Twitter.

***

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews the "Godfather" of the US pro-life movement Joe Scheidler. 91-year-old Scheidler says that it was during a speech he attended by Senator Henry Hyde in Chicago in the early 1970s that he became interested in the pro-life fight. “I listened very carefully to Henry's talk and then I started studying the whole pro-life issue of fetal development,” he says. “I thought this was going to destroy our country because we are taking protection away from the most helpless — the unborn.” You can subscribe here, and listen to the episode below:

The Longhorn #fundie freeconservatives.com

Here are nine reasons why I hate the term "pro-choice":

1. The issue isn't about "choice", it's about abortion. Nobody seems to have a problem with the other choices.

2. If people want to legalize abortion, then why are they so afraid to be labeled with the a-word? Is there something wrong with abortion? If not, then why not proudly wear the name "pro-abortion"?

3. The truly "pro-choice" position is, "I know it's murder, but I still think others should have the right to make that choice." It's utterly indefensible to say that others should have the right to murder.

4. The pro-"choice" crowd has had a history of hiding the facts about abortion. After all, the facts might influënce a woman to choose another option.

5. The pro-"choice" crowd is only for "choice" when it comes to vices. This is the same crowd that opposes "choice", when a conservative option might be given equal time. (i.e., intelligent design, school vouchers).

6. The pro-"choice" crowd doesn't want doctors & nurses to choose not to participate in murder.

7. The pro-"choice" crowd doesn't want pharmaceutical retailers to choose not to sell RU-486.

8. Pro-"choice" means that a WOMAN can make whatever choice she wants. It doesn't mean that a boy can knock up his girlfriend, then threaten to leave her, if she doesn't do what HE wants.

9. "Pro-choice" leaves no choice for the baby.

mdancin4theLord #fundie christianforums.com

You had a picture of buttons with sayings on them......
One said........Pro-family, pro-children, pro-choice.

This is laughable. You can't be pro-choice and say that you are pro-children. The fact that you are a pro-abort...based on choice....says that you want abortion LEGAL SO THAT SOME WOMEN HAVE THE CHOICE TO KILL.

You are not pro-life...pro-children.....you are pro-abortion.

It is sad to know to think that you would be pro-abortion even until natural delivery. So so sad. You say no woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy that she does not want to continue....this would also mean you would condone a late term abortion. I mean playin devils adovacate here....you would not want to enslave someone who does not want to be pregnant...right? It would be hypocritical to say your pro-choice and deny any woman the right to kill......throughout the entire nine months.
How sad, especially because you say you are a Christian.

Would you mind showing me scripture and making Gods case for abortion.

HM3 Ratigan USN 1987-1993, Once a Doc Always a DOC #fundie forum.myspace.com

The simple fact that the Pro-choice side is in support of killing innocent unborn children pretty much sums it up. My little bit will do nothing to wipe the tar from the walls of the Abortion/pro-choice movement. My simple acknowledgment of a simple mistake I made will do nothing to legitimize the pro-choice movement. The pro-choice movement was founded on lies from the very beginning. By the admission of one of it's very founding members the abortion movement has been built on a foundation of lies from their deliberate inflation of numbers of illegal abortions to the consistant bagering of the Catholic Church, to their outright lies about the so-called poles they suposedly took and sold to the press. And yes if the pro-choice movement had its way it would have simple picketting declared as a crime. The one truth that really needs to stand out is this simple one. Abortion is the killing of an innocent unborn child. That is what needs to be acknowledged! That is what the world needs to hear from the Pro-choice movement. I will not apologies for trying to save lives nor will I acknowledge anything for you. You claim you are sick of the false accusations and dedeitful language. Well I have news for you. THE ENTIRE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IS SICK OF THE ENTIRE ABORTION/PRO-CHOICE MOVEMENT THINKING IT IS RIGHT AND GOOD AND AMERICAN TO TAKE THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT UNBORN CHILD. WE WILL NO LONGER COMPROMISE NOR WILL WE APOLOGIES. WE ARE PRO-LIFE AND WE ARE HERE TO STAY!

Anonymous #fundie prochoice-or-gtfo.tumblr.com

What I don't think you understand is that non-gun-owning, non-picketing pro-lifers are afraid of pro-choice violence just as you are afraid of pro-life violence. You think I'm a cruel, violent terrorist because I want to sit down with women in crisis pregnancy and talk to them kindly about their options. I'm afraid to admit I'm pro-life around people who I know are pro-choice, because judging from the threats pro-choicers make online, I never know who might retaliate violently.

Aaron Kaylor #fundie city-data.com

Separate entity from mother. All its chromosomes intact. Grows on its own. It is a child from conception.

There is no such thing as the "anti-choice" movement. Such a name would apply to pro-life if it didn't have anything to do with human right's. The pro-life movement is a pro-human right's movement.

Terms that can be applied. Pro-murderer. Pro-psycho. Pro-infanticide supporter. Anti-compassioners. Pro-okay with making the 'choice' to murder. Pro-deathers. Pro-sick in the head.

You and I don't have the right to murder human beings, therefore that option SHOULD be removed from the table as a "choice." Pro-choice as defined by the pro-abortion movement is an abomination to human rights.

Mark Crutcher #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Mark Crutcher, the Texas anti-abortion activist who inspired David Daleiden’s “baby parts” smear campaign against Planned Parenthood, discussed on his “Life Talk TV” program on Monday the issue of dangerous illegal abortions that that can be the result of laws banning abortion or restricting access.

The very day that an Indiana court heard an appeal in the case of Purvi Patel, a woman who faces decades in prison for what prosecutors claim was a self-induced abortion that caused her to show up at a hospital with severe blood loss, Crutcher and his colleague Renee Hobbs dismissed concerns that women without access to legal abortion will seek out dangerous alternatives, saying that if they do, it’s all the fault of pro-choicers.

“If abortion were outlawed today and next week a bunch of women died from coat hanger abortions, those coat hangers would have been in the hands of pro-choice people, not pro-life people,” Crutcher said.

He said that he used to present a bizarre argument when debating pro-choice people: “I’d say, I’ll tell you what, we can solve the coat hanger abortion thing right now and here’s how we’ll do it. I will get every pro-lifer in the country to sign an agreement that they will never do a coat hanger abortion if you will get every pro-abort in the country to say that they’ll never do coat hanger abortions.”

“The fact is,” he said, “if women wind up dying — every women that has ever died in an abortion, every woman that was ever was raped in an abortion clinic, was killed by a pro-abort or raped by a pro-abort. Why are we responsible for that?”

“So if you don’t like coat-hanger abortions, don’t do abortions,” he concluded.

Christian "Answers" #fundie christiananswers.net

(From: "Is abortion justifiable in cases of rape or incest?")

Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer's position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer.

Mike #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Pro-lifers will win. I'm convinced of it. As long as we hold to our values against the world’s dehumanizing trends we will counter this darkening culture with light and eventually prevail.

Here are a few reasons for my hope:

1) Pro-aborts can't call themselves what they are. They call themselves pro-choice. It's a not-so-subtle nomenclature shift meant to appeal to freedom-loving Americans. But in the end, I believe, if your rallying cry is a lie your supporters are going to figure it out after a while. They're not pro-choice. They're pro-abortion. But they can't admit to that. If you have to lie about what you're for, you're going to lose...eventually.

2) Improvements in science continues to enhance our knowledge of what's going on in the womb, putting pro-aborts on the side of being "anti-science." When Roe first became the law of the land pro-aborts argued that the baby wasn't a baby at all but just a clump of cells. Most people know that's not true anymore. People have seen 3-D Ultrasounds. People have seen the photo of the baby reaching out during an in-utero surgery. The numbers of the ignorant are dwindling and that aids our cause.

3) There are no great pro-choice speeches and there never will be any. You can't move people by speaking eloquently of the right to have consequence-less sex with someone you don't love. Think back - how many great speeches in the American pantheon have there been which include the words "rape and incest." I'm thinking it's a pretty low number. "Give me freedom or give me rape and incest" just doesn't work right. Even the great orator of our time Barack Obama could only come up with, "I don't want them punished with a baby" in support of abortion. Pro-lifers on the other hand speak about those things which move us -life, rights and God. In the end, our superior speechifying will win out.

4) We pro-lifers have more babies. It's simple. Those that don't believe in killing babies in the womb typically end up having more babies. Pro-lifers are more...prolific. Go to church some Sunday and you'll hear a chorus of babies attempting to drown out the sermon. You don't bring babies to a NARAL meeting. It's considered rude. In the end, demographics win.

I truly believe we'll win. We have to. We must. And we must never accept that some must die for convenience or that some must be selected to die for the greater good of society. And we must not accept that killing someone is a mercy to them because their life would be difficult due to illness. Until every life is legally esteemed as sacred we should never rest and never give up.

As an example of the shifting tide, ABC News (7/29) covered a heartwarming story of two unborn babies with a terrible problem. The twins were diagnosed with "Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome," a deadly complication that would likely kill both unborn children. The children were saved by a remarkable in utero surgery.

Almost as remarkable as the surgery, however, is the the fact the ABC decided to do a story which so clearly illustrates the humanity of the unborn. Add to that, this introduction by Charlie Gibson.

We have “Closer Look,” tonight, at some of the most awe-inspiring surgery that modern medicine has to offer. It is not an operation performed on a heart or a brain, as delicate as those procedures might be. This surgery is done on the tiniest, most fragile of patients imaginable. Babies yet to be born. ABC’s John McKenzie on a rare procedure done inside the womb. Not just on one fetus, but two.
Were that not enough, the piece included this exchange between John McKenzie and Dr. Kenneth Moise of the Texas Children's Hospital.

MCKENZIE: Using a kind of miniature telescope, doctors enter Kim’s amniotic sack. And there they are, the boys. Their perfectly formed feet and hands.

MOISE: You can see them moving sometimes they’ll reach up and grab the scope.

MCKENZIE: The fetus will grab the scope?

MOISE We’ve had it actually pull on the scope.
As we remember from the famous Michael Clancy photo, nothing illustrates the humanity of the unborn better than their little hands grasping just as newborns do.

cultureshift #fundie cultureshift.tumblr.com

["Thoughts on pro choicers who become midwives/OBs? Do you think that they can do the job as well as someone who actually values the baby's life?"]

Consider this: would you want someone to babysit your toddler who had killed thousands of other toddlers and planned to kill thousands more in the years to come? For the same reason, I would never want a pro-choice OB/GYN to touch my unborn child. If you are pregnant and Pro-Life, you should never go near a pro-choice OB/GYN.

["What if the pro choice OB or midwife doesn't perform abortions? Are they still trustworthy to deliver babies?"]

Knowing that they believe that an unborn child should be killed ‘on demand and without apology’, how can you know that they would do everything possible to save an unborn child’s life if everything possible needed to be done? How do you know that they wouldn’t simply tell the mother of that child that she should abort because it’s the easier and less expensive option?

You can’t know. That’s why I would never let a pro-choice OB/GYN near my unborn child. Never.

servant222 #fundie foru.ms

One of the biggest problems with pro-abortionists is that they are in denial about the fact that life begins at conception. To try and counter this misconception, ask pro-choicers the following question:

Should parents have the right to abort a foetus based purely on its sex?

Most, especially strong feminists, will indignently say "of course not; that's outrageous!"

But, hey, pro-choice is pro-choice- you either support it or you don't- so if a mother decides to abort purely on the basis of gender, then what business is that of anyone else?

Another question to ask is:

Should parents have the right to discard their foetus a day before it is due to be born?

Again, the answer is usually an outrageous "Of course not!!".

And my answer is similar: abortion is not murder ONLY if you believe that life begins at birth (that is, not at conception). So whether a foetus is one second old or 9 months minus a day old isn't relevant if you believe in pro-choice.

The Chinese have it right: the birthday of a person is measured by when they were conceived, not by when they were born.

Theodore Shulman #fundie politicsdaily.com

The FBI in New York has reportedly arrested Theodore Shulman, a radical abortion rights campaigner with a long history of threatening pro-life activists, and charged him with making interstate threats against two abortion opponents who were not identified.

The 49-year-old Shulman was arrested on Thursday and was being held without bond at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, according to pro-life activists who were alerted to Shulman's incarceration by federal investigators. An officer at the correctional center referred a calls about inmates to the public relations office, which is closed over the weekend.

"This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, a prominent anti-abortion organization, said in a story on the group's website. "He often posted threatening comments to our website and called me on my cell phone too many times to count."
[...]
"He was always brazen in his threats and openly identified himself, telling us not to bother calling the FBI because they would never do anything for us," Sullenger said. "Thankfully, he was wrong about that."
[...]
For whatever reasons, Theodore Shulman -- who goes by Ted -- seemed to fixate on the issue of abortion rights and defined his activism by fierce and often extreme verbal attacks on pro-lifers that often threatened them with a violent end. He liked to allude to himself as the "first pro-choice terrorist" and started a blog called "Operation Counterstrike."

His mission statement says: "Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it."
[...]
It's not clear what Shulman may have done to push his actions and rhetoric across the line to alleged criminality. In its website report about Shulman's arrest Operation Rescue includes an audio recording of a threat to Cheryl Sullenger that the group says Shulman left on the group's voicemail:

"Hi Cheryl, I'm calling you to say you need to convert to pro-choice because your Maker is going to send an angel to gather you in very soon, and if you haven't converted to pro-choice by the time you get OFFED you will go to hell and burn!" the message says. "So quick, quick, quick -- convert to pro-choice during the few months you have left on this earth. Do it now!"

Steven Ertelt #fundie lifenews.com

For years the "pro-choice" mantra has gone something like this: abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, we can't tell women what to do with their bodies, women have a right to choose, etc. Yet, a recent forced abortion incident in China proves so-called "pro-choice" advocates are nothing more than pro-abortion

madameliberty #fundie madameliberty.tumblr.com

Regardless of what you think, abortion does not solve rape or poverty.

A poor woman getting an abortion doesn’t solve her poverty.

A woman who was raped getting an abortion doesn’t reverse her rape.

A woman in an abusive relationship getting an abortion doesn’t change her abuse, and in fact, it may help perpetuate it.

A woman getting an abortion because the child may be disabled doesn’t change stigma against the disabled or work towards bettering the lives of the disabled.

Abortion is not a solution to these problems, so stop pretending you care about poor women or sexually assaulted women by convincing them to get abortions. How is it “pro-choice” when a woman is financially unstable and must kill her own child? How is it “pro-choice” when a woman is raped and no one will emotionally support her? How is it “pro-choice” when a woman is abused and can’t choose to give birth to her baby? Where were her choices?

Nowhere, because abortion doesn’t solve these issues so STOP PRETENDING IT DOES. Abortion is wrong in its nature, of course; it also doesn’t even help the problems it claims to solve. So stop touting that it’s “for the poor! the underprivileged! the abused! the raped!” Because its not. If you result supported choice, you’d do everything in your power to help these women give birth to their babies instead of telling them abortion is their only choice. Because that isn’t pro-choice at all.

#abortion #politics

rAtnA's #fundie profile.myspace.com

[I received these as private messages, so I can't link to the post. Link goes to the guy's profile.]

Its not really about pro choice or pro life because those are styles and a style is a crystallization and crystallization is a cessation of growth and prosperity.

Styles and crystallizations are anti-reality because reality is never static, not even in space.

Even your favorite book is on fire right now, its just burning at a rate that is too slow to produce visual flames, but 55 years from now the book will appear brown and singed----almost as if by flame----say cheese, you get the picture.

Many different interactive, active elements combine to form the situations around abortions, so to see the picture clearly we must remove ourselves from our limited, narrow initial perspectives and catch a hot-air balloon to the bigger picture...........otherwise you can separate, isolate, limit, control, and be a lonely skittle.

[I'm sorry, what does natural oxidation have to do with women's political rights again?]

Oxidation = natural death = Mother Earth Progression.

death = man-made fire = abortion/war = Mother Earth Regression.

Combustion is the number one source of smog, regression, abortion, unnatural death.

Sometimes people need to remind me that I live in the otherworld and sometimes people have no idea how i got where i am and in that case whatever i say makes no sense, so i apologize, and i might as well apologize again because this all probly makes no sense either but in light of my path it makes perfect sense.

*****All I'm really trying to say is that to declare oneself pro life or pro choice is a style and a crystallization and a stagnation of growth which promotes an unatural Mother Earth death like a man made fire that will take your book from you in 100 seconds instead of 100 decades. We need stories not slogans. I am from: the future but i live in the present, you see, that cannot be true, we can only live in the present, and thus we can only be pro-life or pro-choice in the immediate situation of life and death, and at no other time is it accurate to be pro choice or life.

Tear down the walls that define your perspectives and float up in a hot air balloon to my perspective where we can see immediate time exist on our blue and white planet and see time not exist in our eternal space where there is no time except the time of creation. Creation via big bang or by God or by both or by none, at most all we can have is a time of creation, and perhaps a time of end, but there are no other times that exist in space except for the time on blue and white planet. There is only one planet. The other planets are just random balls of dust and ice space matter that just happen to orbit the sun as well even though thousands of lifeless balls of space matter orbit the sun too for the simple reason that the sun creates a gravitation pathway for the other balls of dust, if there was only one planet there would be need for grouping other lifeless balls of dust/ice/spacematter ambiguously into the precise atmosphere of Earth.

Propaganda #fundie forum.myspace.com

(That site lists a man killing his pregnant girlfriend as 'pro-abortion violence.' There's nothing pro-choice about that - that's just your standard violent, controlling misogyny)

sure there is.. man decides to kill someone else.. PRO CHOICE!

woman decides to kill someone else.. PRO CHOICE!

same thing.. same cycle of abuse.. being 1 preys on weaker being 2... then, being 2 preys on weaker being 3

cyclical trauma of which abortion is a symptom... a part.. not the cause (timmeh)

catholicwifeandmom #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

The first thing to keep in mind is that pro-lifers don’t do abortions. If abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice. In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice. In other words, when the abortion lobby says, “If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” what they’re actually saying is, “If you stop us from killing babies, we’re going to start killing women.”

[emphasis original]

Jackie Alnor #fundie scatteredsheepreport.blogspot.com

Planned Parenthood Shooter: Madman or Hero?

The recent shooting at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs that left three people dead, including a pro-life police officer, stunned everyone - pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike. People from both sides of the political issue have labeled Robert Lewis Dear a madman or an insane maniac. But is he really?

If his motive was to put a stop to the killing of unborn babies, as the media is suggesting since he allegedly proclaimed, "no more baby parts" while being arrested, then is that not a heroic act?

If staff in a Daycare facility were hacking up toddlers, would we label anyone a "madman" for running in guns blazing to prevent another toddler from being slaughtered? Of course not! He would be a hero and be rewarded with some sort of medal of honor.

Liberals are saying the shooting was politically motivated, some blaming Republicans and conservatives. But it sounds more emotionally motivated. If a person truly believes that these dismembered fetal body parts we're all seeing photos of is of human babies - this would be a very normal response.

Thanks to social media, the secret slaughter of the innocents is coming out of the closet. Can a person with a conscience look upon bloody photos of baby parts - disembodied heads, legs, arms, torsos - and turn a blind eye to it?

The pro-life lobby rightfully argues that life begins at conception. And the pro-choice activists say that life begins at birth and as long as a fetus is killed while still in the womb, no harm done. Yet there are many reports of aborted babies coming out alive and being finished off by the attending staff.

So is it unreasonable for someone to take the defense of the unborn to its logical conclusion? Is murder going on in those buildings every day? Are the lives of unborn babies just as human as the lives of 3-year-old toddlers? Is it rational to defend the lives of innocent babies?

If the answer is 'yes,' then who's crazy now? It is sheer hypocrisy that unborn babies are just as human as you or I, if you are not willing to back that up with action.

Time stands still now #fundie timestandsstillnow.tumblr.com

(However, I didn’t see anything about pro-choice harrassment in the article? If I missed it or if it’s present in another article, I’d love to see the link to it so I could read it.

While this woman, unfortunately, didn’t make the decision best for her, the option should still be open to other people. There are people that get abortions and are happy with the results, and I don’t think that should be taken away from them. People regret tattoos, piercings, etc., but those options are still, rightfully, available. There are also people who regret having children, and that option is neccessary for people to have as well.)

I read about this today. Such a tragedy. I pray that women who feel the same guilt seek help so that they may find healing and life after the death of their children.

I don’t think you understood when you asked about pro-choice harassment. It’s the pro-choice mindset that dehumanizes unborn children and convinces women that abortion is a viable option which persuades women like Jade to have abortions. When she realized what she had done, she felt an overwhelming guilt.

Tattoos and piercings are not immoral. They don’t stop beating hearts. They don’t destroy life. These are not good analogies. Abortion is simply a bad option, period, for the women it harms and the children it erases.

desire_isabella #racist community.livejournal.com

Can someone tell me why a majority of the pro-life movement views neo-Nazi's and White Nationalists incapable of actually being truly pro-life? I have been banned from prolife because of my affilliations with non-violent neo-nazi and White Nationalist groups. [...]

I think the prolife [livejournal] community completely forgot that A. the KKK organization is very pro-life, B. Neo-Nazi's in general are pro-life, C. that Hitler himself was pro-life, and D. the a majority of White Nationalists are pro-life. I bet that there are many neo-Nazi's or White Nationalists a part of their so called "all human loving" community but they aren't open about it because of this, the judgemental asswipes that fill the earth. The prolife community on LJ is so friggin hypocritcal now it is amazing. They are for human life, but will willingly terrorize a person for not believing or agreeing with every little thing they do. Yeah, prolife is not pro-life, they are only pro-life for those who want to destroy individual culture, heritage, and pride.

Nathan Sheets #fundie community.livejournal.com

Don't Want to Die from a Coat Hanger Abortion? Don't Have One!

Pro-choicers think that it is somehow a kind of threat when they declare that, should abortion be made illegal, they will all go out and kill themselves by getting coat hanger abortions. I don’t know about any of you, but this actually encourages me to continue to fight for criminalized abortion.

The pro-choicers treat the fictional 14 year-old girls who supposedly died pre-Roe as if they are wonderful women who were martyred for a noble cause. Besides being unable to provide even one documented evidence of the—what are we at now?—“hundreds of thousands” of women who died every year from coat hanger abortions, pro-choicers consistently ignore the fact that such women were trying to kill their children.

We are expected to act and react to these hypothetical women in the same way we would react should the Pope walk into the room. If they weren’t dead, we would embrace them, thank them for their great service to the world and ask them if they would like to be taken out to lunch.

Pro-lifers who dare to call such women baby killers, murderers, delusional, insane, troubled, pressured, weak or anything other than “amazing women” are quickly called—by pro-choicers and some pro-lifers alike—anti-women and insensitive. Even many pro-lifers have fallen for the coat hanger myth, because, really, who didn’t have a great aunt who died from a coat hanger abortion?

Wilson #fundie patheos.com

[on a blog post of a pro-lifer who turned pro-choice]
Being evil is easier than being principled, so your story of courage is really the opposite. I’ll agree that birth control should be supported by people who are pro-life, but unfortunately the only people who subscribe to any morality in this country are strict Christians, some of whom mistakenly want to legislate morality. But why isn’t there a pro-choice faction that supports BC, but wants to limit abortion? Because they have taken their pro-choicisim to such a level that they are in fact anti-life. Now being pro-BC doesn’t mean you have to be pro-free-BC, that is stepping things up to pro-socialism. You think you were being “duped” before, but you still are being duped, just to an atheistic anti-human doctrine.

whitey #fundie forum.falloutstudios.org

I don't know about over across the pond, but here, we have facilities where you can simply leave a new-born, no questions asked. That's it, just leave it.

I've used this before: Every rose has its thorns. Sex has the potential of bearing a child, it is a risk that both parents are aware of. (Of course, rape is excempt from this argument). Might as well adopt a child and kill it a year down the line for being a brat.

We need to be teaching society to accept consequences, not put them over onto somebody else (ESPECIALLY the victim!)

I was almost aborted as a child because the doctors didn't get much of a heartbeat going and suspected I had died. And yet, my mom said "I'll come in next week" and plop, there I was, heartbeat and all. Different circumstances, sure, but I was most definitely alive and it would have been quite painful to have my body crushed, even in the womb.

A fetus is a living organism. Though dependent upon the mother, the fetus can move with (very slightly) free will. And yet thousands of these lives are ended and uncared for. Tossed to the fucking garbage, a human life for fuck's sake. Functioning organs, developed nervous system, etc. And yet the fetus has no choice. You are not pro choice, I am pro choice. You are pro murder.

[[ A lot of animals are also killed so you can eat, having had a life that wasn't very enjoyable. What makes you say humans are so much more important?What makes the government allowed to force a woman to go through a lot of pain and even putting a child upon her that she may not even be able to afford or want to take care of. Adoption isn't something you do easily either, there is always an emotional scar. Giving up a baby after it's born can be very hard, however if you keep it then it changes your life forever. ]]

The thing is, we don't eat babies for our survival. That argument is irrevelant, since the slaughtered animals go to use whereas slaughter babies do not.

And the government shouldn't have to tell the woman what do do with her child's body. Not her body, her child's. But that is not the case. Because two people are stupid enough to not use protection in having sex, you think the government should kill the victim? (the child). Sure, save the woman some short time of pain, but make the majority of the child's life a living hell. That is humanitarian.


[[ The child does not feel a lot of pain. I don't know how it's done in the US though, but here..Also, short is relative. The woman is in pain longer than the child for a second. Births can take several hours upto a day even.What happens when people have used protection but it fails, as it does in some small percentage of all cases? ]]


1: More pain than the woman at least. It's the one being killed.
2: The baby is in pain more than a second (especially during partial birth abortions). And that time in comparison to its whole lifespan versus the 1 day of a woman in her whole lifespan puts, I believe, the baby at the disadvantage.

Go through the one day of suffering and allow the child to live, grow, and die by its own accords. It's one day to save a life...


Russell Moore #fundie russellmoore.com

Some on the Left would impute this killer’s actions to the rhetoric of pro-life organizations, especially about the horrifying revelations about Planned Parenthood that have come out over the past year. This is a wrongheaded and deceptive tactic, but it just might spur us to think about just what our speech should be as we think about abortion.

The Left is right, of course, that pro-life (or any other kind of) rhetoric should never dehumanize or encourage violence against anyone. Murdering people, including abortion facility personnel, is itself a manifestation of the culture of death. This sort of gun violence is immoral, criminal, and is condemned by God. And, of course, mainstream pro-life speech doesn’t do anything of the sort.

As a matter of fact, the pro-life movement has in many ways served as a model of civility in the culture wars. After all, a central part of the pro-life movement has been to persuade women not to abort their children.

[...]

Those of us who are gospel Christians must speak with gospel conviction and with gospel pleading to those who are vulnerable, including women caught in crisis situations. This requires speaking honestly about what abortion is. That is, after all, the problem many have with the rhetoric of the pro-life movement; it is not so much about what we say as what we don’t say. We don’t dehumanize children with clinical language of “fetuses” and “embryos” and “products of conception.”

We in the pro-life movement cannot avoid speaking of what abortion is, and the injustice of it. In a letter to the editor to the New York Times in the years after Roe v. Wade, writer Walker Percy said to the abortion rights movement: “You may get your way. But you’re going to be told what you’re doing.” That’s exactly right. Unjust social systems cannot be changed if we do not acknowledge what they are. That’s true even, or rather I should say especially, when we would rather turn away.

That’s also true because we cannot address consciences held in bondage if we do not speak what uneasy consciences already know about abortion. In order to call to repentance, we must intersect the word of God with the law written on the heart (Rom. 2:15). God hears the cries of the oppressed, the orphaned, and the murdered. We cannot pretend that they are simply “medical waste” or “collateral damage.”

At the same time, we don’t end with the pointing out of injustice. The call to repentance is a call to faith, a call to forgiveness, a call to freedom. That’s what gospel Christians have to offer to the pro-life movement. We don’t just have a public policy to restrict abortion (although we must have that). We don’t simply have ministries for women in crisis or for children who need homes (although we must have that too). We must have a word for those who have aborted, or who have paid for abortions, a word even for those who practice abortion. This word doesn’t minimize the violence of abortion, and it certainly doesn’t seek to combat this violence with more violence.

themoofster #fundie themoofster.tumblr.com

A lot of pro-abortionists will hold a woman who has had an abortion's hand and tell them how proud they are and how strong they are and how they should be respected.

The same pro-abortionists will tell you that pro-lifers are the most unkind and insensitive people there are.

When someone posts a picture of themselves, smiling, after an abortion, and pro-lifers respond by calling them selfish and disgusting, it's because they are literally commenting on a picture of a person who is proud of themselves for tearing their child to pieces because their existence was inconvenient to their parent. They are proud of murder.

An abortion ends in the purposeful death of someone who had no choice in the matter. Like hell we'll pat the hand and sympathize with someone who is proud of themselves for killing their child.

Pro-lifers don't give a shit about "controlling women" or what you do with your junk. We care about you not dismembering helpless human beings. There is nothing about such an act to be prideful about.

If a woman dies in "back-alley" abortions, we will mourn the loss of the woman and the child. We WILL NOT say that it should be safer for a woman to kill her child. In any scenario, if a murderer got killed while trying to end someone else's life, there would be celebration from media outlets and individual people. But, when a woman wants to kill her undeveloped child? No we're supposed to celebrate that, instead.

Know why pro-lifers want abortion to be illegal? It's because we're anti-death and don't think it should be legal to fucking murder someone because you're their family.

I personally don't give a shit if you think we're mean. If you have willingly ended someone's life and you have the gall to smile about it, I will never respect you.

BenMcLean #sexist #fundie reddit.com

No, we do not hate women, but we do hate feminists.

"Nobody ever, ever, ever has any right to the use of my body without my permission."

Why?

"Because congratulations, you've just argued yourself into forced organ donation for MEN"

This seems to be assuming a radical egalitarianism which I don't think you will find is a common premise.

"Because nothing you've said actually decreases abortion rates."

Our goal isn't to decrease abortion rates. Our goal is to end the abortion holocaust.

Just as the anti-slavery movement didn't set better treatment for slaves or any temporary short term decrease in the slavery rate as one of it's goals, the anti-abortion movement does not have a temporary short term decrease in the abortion rate as one of it's goals. That sort of goal only serves to prolong the root problem.

"One out of three women in America has had an abortion--and those numbers only increase in forced-birther dominated areas."

Which areas would those be?

"A pro-choice position"

You're not pro-choice.

"Know how else I know everything you've said here is a complete logical fallacy? Because I'm in my mid-40s and was a fundamentalist Christian back in the 1980s. You're recycling arguments that forced-birthers used back then, and it was those arguments that chased me right out of the movement--and right out of the religion too! Shocking, how similar the arguments are, the ones used by both religious fanatics and forced-birthers. That's why I just sigh and shake my head when you try to bring up atheist forced-birthers. I've talked to them, and they are using the same arguments religious people use--and to the same idiotic end. They don't even realize that they're playing into the movement's agenda of re-Christianizing America."

Apparently, you need to read up on how logical fallacies work. You wouldn't have shown any logical fallacy to be occurring even if every single thing you said here was absolutely true.

"Oh, did I surprise you?"

Only with how little you understand how arguments work.

"The history of abortion in America is a sickeningly dystopian one; it's always been a dogwhistle used by religious nuts to restrict women's rights..."

I can simply respond that "women's rights" has always been a dogwhistle used by anti-religious nuts to murder babies.

"...and signal virtue--in this case against what they view as immorality."[i/]

Right because virtue signaling and decrying what you view as immorality is something you'd neeeeever do.

"You know what forced-birthers call feminism? "The curse of independence.""

You know what I call feminism? Brain cancer.

"That's why the forced-birther position concentrates not on lowering abortion rates, but upon making abortion brutally difficult to acquire.

Assuming you mean the Pro-Life movement, the reason we focus on making abortion brutally difficult to acquire is because the electoral and amendment processes have been circumvented by judicial fiat, (in Roe v. Wade) which ultimately destroys the respectability of the law. So we're going around the law. Rather than banning abortion outright, we'll levy a local abortion tax so that each one costs a trillion dollars, or drive every baby murder mill out of business with frivolous lawsuits or try any other dirty trick which has the same effect. Why should we respect pro-abortion laws when you don't respect anti-abortion laws?

"That's why they also don't worry much about the "precious babies" once they're born, and why they don't endorse social safety nets for the poor women who are plunged into worse poverty after an unwanted pregnancy."

That is untrue of the Pro-Life movement and it's supporters.

"This is my body. I own it."

No you don't. God does.

"And that, too, is something I'm not going to discuss with you. Resolve that on your own time. I'm not set up to fix that level of broken."

You can't actually address a point of view which significantly differs from yours?

If so, then shut up and get back in the kitchen, bitch.

Gingi Edmonds #fundie gingiedmonds.com

George Tiller - the infamous late-term abortionist and medical director of Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas – was killed on May 31, 2009.

...The man chose his fate the moment he dismembered his first infant. I'm not embarrassed to say what the punishment for the crime is anymore than I'm embarrassed to admit that child killing is a crime.

Did I want him to be gunned down in church - even a hypocritical, Molech-worshiping fraud of a church like the one he was attending while shot? No. I would have much preferred him being tried and convicted in a court of law that is consistent with medical science and personhood as defined in our Constitution. We can prevent the atrocious acts of violence against abortionists by holding them accountable to their actions.

...Tiller was killed by a pro-choice act. Pro-lifers need make no apologies.

PETE #fundie forum.myspace.com

And if someone is pro-choice then they are pro-slavery. It's the same thing, no doubt about it. Astral called someone else racist, well the truth is Astral must be pro-slavery so who is the racist. It is the same principle, PROPERTY, the baby and the slave. Such hypocrites we have who are pro-choice and in the same breath tries to preach equality.

Derryck Green #fundie derryckgreen.com


All Christians Should Support Capital Punishment.

Shane Claiborne- a social justice activist, a progressive Christian who runs the Simple Way community in Philadelphia, and an author who published Executing Grace earlier this summer about the death penalty- was recently interviewed by Relevant Magazine about what he claims is the Christian obligation to reject capital punishment.

Claiborne seems sincere in his religious opposition to capital punishment but his reasoning (in this piece but also his book) to support abolition are in conflict with biblical justifications for the death penalty, and don’t make much sense.

For example, Claiborne says-
“The consistent life ethic is beautiful. It says, “We are uncompromisingly going to stand for life.” The early Christians did that; they unilaterally spoke against violence in all forms. But what’s happened… pro-life has come just to mean anti-abortion… But it’s not the only life issue.
…The death penalty raises one of the most fundamental questions of our faith which is: Is any person beyond redemption? At the end of the day I think there are a lot of reasons to be against the death penalty, but for a Christian who believes that Jesus died to spare us from death and this idea of grace or as Scripture says “mercy triumphs over judgement.”

This is a bit convoluted and attempts to hide moral relativism posing as, but distorting, Christianity.

“Violence in all forms?” So murder, rape, and punishment for both are all morally equal and can be comparably defined as violence? How? Based in what functioning moral universe? The Bible and Christian orthodoxy are clear that gradations of violence, sin, and punishment exist precisely because of the morality attached to them.

The idea that one has to reject capital punishment to maintain pro-life ethical consistency is a false dichotomy, completely ignoring biblical teaching on the matter.
In my opinion- and based on the Bible, to be pro-capital punishment is to be pro-life.

It’s why the divine injunction of capital punishment (specifically related to intentional murder) is the only command repeated in each of the first five books of the Bible, beginning in Genesis 9:6, a universal proscription and application which predates the judicial and ceremonial laws of theocracy of ancient Israel. As such, this divine directive can’t be rationalized away as an injunction that was both historically and geographically explicit to the ancient Hebraic religious cultic practice.

So, why is supporting capital punishment equal to being prolife? The answer is found in the above scriptural passage: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” This divine imperative foreshadows the language found in the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue- “You shall not murder.” It’s precisely because we’re created in the image of God, that (premeditated) murder must be punished with this kind of required severity. Murdering a fellow human is a moral offense to God and must be treated and responded to as such.

Capital justice rightly roots out the evil in our midst, preserving the lives of the majority. It’s a tool properly used by the government to protect and defend human life, not a course of cheap vengeance. As stated earlier, all ‘violence’ isn’t the same because of the morality attached and required response to it. Those who commit the most grievous of crimes and worthy of the death penalty are killed, preventing them from re-committing their reprehensible acts, which violate the safety and security of other people.

Sparing the life of one worthy of capital punishment, for example a murderer, increases the chances that he or she will murder again. Are Christian abolitionists of the death penalty willing to see another innocent person murdered by someone that should’ve been put to death? Shane Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists of the death penalty never confront the real statistical possibility that by ‘executing grace’ to a condemned murderer allows him or her the ability to commit more violent acts and committing murder again- of another inmate or a correctional officer while imprisoned, or another civilian if/when they’re released from the penitentiary due to shortened sentences. I’m not sure the consciences of these Christian abolitionists of capital justice confront the reality that their “compassion” facilitates more murders of innocent people, and they’re obligated to explain how this unsound position and gamble can be characterized as compassionate.

Furthermore, Claiborne’s petition that no one is “beyond redemption” doesn’t factor in the dispute against capital punishment. The argument is that no person- regardless of the moral depravity evidenced in the actions s/he’s committed- is beyond repentance, spiritual conversion and redemption. As such, a person shouldn’t be condemned to death via capital punishment, but should be spared and given opportunities to be spiritually rehabilitated and saved.

Unfortunately, there are some people who’re simply beyond spiritual repair. History is chockfull of examples of people who committed atrocities against others who never repented of their evil acts. History also testifies that many people sentenced to prison for a determined length of time- up to life in prison- didn’t express remorse or realize spiritual restoration.

The redemption of the felon on death row is between the felon and God. It’s up to God to have mercy on him/her; we on the other hand, have to do what’s right and necessary for the preservation of civil society by protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Sparing the condemned doesn’t do that. It sends exactly the wrong message about life’s sacrosanctity to other violent criminals that have yet to be brought to justice. Abolishing the death penalty shows preferential treatment for the murderer at the expense of the murdered. Again, how is this grace or compassion?

Even still, the “beyond redemption” appeal by Christians as a religious protest misses a couple key points.

God works on his time- not ours. The potential of the condemned being redeemed isn’t predicated on his exemption from capital punishment- as if God needs as much time as possible to transform and save the lost.

What if the guilty rejects redemption? Life imprisonment, rather than death for the possibility of redemption is a huge moral gamble that doesn’t make sense.
Since the time-sensitive potentiality of the condemned being redeemed is considered, why isn’t the alternative? Rather than giving both God and the condemned inmate ample time to get to know each other, why don’t Christian opponents of capital punishment contemplate the prospect that the spiritual conversion of death row inmates might increase if the death penalty was more efficient and accelerated? Increasing the urgency of death could prompt a change of heart that 30 years on death row won’t.
To the point, being spiritually redeemed doesn’t revoke earthly punishment.

Claiborne continues-
“Today, black people are about 13 percent of the overall population, but they’re 34 percent of executions and 43 percent of death row.
We like to say it’s about the most heinous crimes, but really the biggest determinants in capital punishment are the race of the victim and the resources of the defendant.”
This is dishonest and Claiborne either knows it, or at the very least, he’s exceedingly naïve.

Claiborne completely ignores the severity of the crime(s) committed- the reason(s) why a person is on death row- and implies that the disproportionate numbers of blacks on death row and their executions are primarily the result of racial and economic factors, not (im)moral ones. Christians who share this position of disparate impact completely ignore or excuse the violent acts committed by black felons deserving of the death penalty, which are readily available from the FBI or the Bureau of Justice Statistics/Department of Justice.

Intentionally excusing blacks from human moral obligation and agency isn’t benevolence; it’s condescending racial paternalism used to advance a superficial agenda masquerading as justice.

Absolving blacks from moral standards and expectations that everyone else is subjected to might qualify as “compassion” or “justice” in the morally ostensible world of social justice activists. In the real world of cause and consequence, the majority of people on death row are there as punishment deserving of the crimes they’ve committed. If Claiborne is concerned about the disparate impact of capital punishment on black lives, he should instead focus on highlighting and condemning the contributing factors that facilitate the disproportional participation of blacks in violent criminality- the causative factor(s), which qualifies black felons for the death penalty.
Extending leniency to villains as compensation for their evil guarantees the actions of evil- including murder- will increase.

Sparing the life of the murderer doesn’t demonstrate compassion; it devalues it.
Of course, Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists argue that the ministry of Jesus in the New Testament has vacated the Old Testament moral and legal prescriptions for capital punishment. But this is a form of theological and biblical service buffet- simply taking away what one likes and ignoring what one doesn’t so as to reinforce one’s ideological predeterminations.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Jesus didn’t annul capital punishment in his Sermon on the Mount. During his Sermon in Matthew 5, Jesus says,
“You have heard it said, ‘An eye for eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

How exactly is this nullification against the divine command of killing a murderer? Clearly, Jesus is referring back to the Levitical law of proportionality (Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:19-21a), meaning that punishments should fit the crimes committed rather than exceeding them. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon isn’t rescinding the command to punish murderers by death. Rather, he’s teaching his listeners- first century commoners and other marginalized groups- how to respond to insults and offenses in interpersonal relationships. This subversive teaching regarding self-control instead of retaliation in the face of public humiliation had nothing to do with government, governmental authority or how government was to administer punishment.

Aside from misinterpreting and misapplying Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount as an argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty, Christian opponents of the death penalty ignore or misinterpret Romans 13:1-5. Here Paul says that the government, being a servant of God, doesn’t bear the sword in vain. Rather, it rightly punishes criminals for committing evil. The Greek word for sword combined with the implication of the passage makes clear that Paul was indeed saying that civil government has a responsibility to protect its constituents, which included punishing by death those who commit evil, violence and threaten public safety.

A moral society that values life is duty bound to protect its citizens. It also has a moral obligation to prove the high value of life by punishing those who intentionally and without reservation, devalue it. In my opinion, contemporary Christian abolitionists of capital punishment undermine the sacredness of life by “compassionately” regarding murderers at the expense of the murdered, and future murderers at the expense of the future victims of murder. By seeking to end of the death penalty, they’re surrendering their responsibility to defend and maintain the inimitable value of human life using the pro-life teachings of Christianity to defend a pro-death position.

Capital punishment is a touchy subject and good arguments can be made to support both sides of the debate. But many of the arguments advanced by Claiborne- in addition to Pope Francis (here and here) and other Christian opponents of the death penalty, thus far, aren’t good arguments and they contradict and undermine the Bible in the process.

Life Dynamics Inc. #fundie klannedparenthood.com

This portion of the Death Camps tour looks at the history of holocaust. By comparing Germany's Nazi holocaust and America's abortion holocaust you'll see there is practically no difference between the mindset of holocaust then and now. As with slavery in early America, killing Jews in Nazi Germany, or killing babies in America today -- just because something is legal does not make it right. So how do you get a country to allow humans to be treated worse than animals? You use euphemisms to convince people that these actions are justifiable, or even beneficial.

Abortion advocates and America's largest Death Camp operator, Planned Parenthood, have elevated the dehumanization of holocaust victims to an art form with their 'pro-choice' rhetoric. But those who side with the pro-choice crowd may be shocked by the racial slurs and elitist ideals of Planned Parenthood's celebrated founder, Margaret Sanger. As you'll see, her words and goals bear an eerie similarity to the words and ideas of the Nazis.

I am Victory67 #fundie unbelief.org

Pro-life: Do not believe in choice-abortion
Pro-Choice: Believes that choice-abortion should be one of the first choices when and if the woman has a choice. That to have a baby is not the best (Planned Parenthood) choice, but should be able to abort and kill the kid, so that the family can have more money, etc.

Katie Ann Johnson #fundie facebook.com

I use to be pro-choice until I got saved and read the gospel and REALLY understood what being pro-choice meant....needless to say I’m pro-life because it’s not right to end a potential life because of someone’s negligence. In a world where condoms, birth control, and, the morning after pill are tangible easily, there’s no excuse. There is NO such thing as “accidentally pregnant”. Have safe sex or don’t have sex at all (which is my route and I must say it’s 100%)

Truthmonger #fundie newsbusters.org

...I saw this episode - no one blew up in the Schaivo case of course - much to the MSM's dismay - so they made a "reality" it on TV (the only way they can ever get their way anymore). Of course the evil bomber turned out to be (suprise!) an evil pro-life Christian. MJB will be back here later promoting "how everyone knows" that all pro-lifers are really avid pipe bombers hell-bent on blowing up all ("truly decent") pro-choicers...

The bigger implication of the episode was that a pro-life clergyman cleverly orchestrated the bombing with diabolical mind-manipulation methods in order to gain media exposure...when is the last time we saw a positive pro-life character or conservative Christian on a major network televison program? The answer of course is never...they are all evil or mind-numbed robots in MSM la-la land...

The main ploy here here is to make the pro-lifers look like the killers - take the focus off of the REAL pro-choice killers. This is a common lib tactic I've noticed now as we also saw in New Orleans where racist libs tried to paint conservatives as the racists...

As I watch these programs week after week I increasingly wonder about these writers...their anti-Christian propaganda and agenda is now so transparent. They are so hate-filled, guilt-ridden, and bitter about their lives. They are such fear-mongers, such bigots...what truly pathetic lives they live...

Acyutananda #fundie disqus.com

Acyutananda:
I'll reproduce here a comment I made under the recent "Science/Philosophy Distinction" post:
The funny thing is that the scientists who say life doesn't begin at conception don't disagree about science with those who say it does. If they were all to sit around a table and discuss one point in time of human development after another, they would closely agree about the processes going on at each point.
They are disagreeing about nomenclature, about words. It's a semantic debate. If they were to agree to freshly coin all the words they will need for the embryology field, they could probably easily coin some words and assign them the definitions that will be most useful for their scientific purposes, and come to an agreement. But since they persist in using existing words, and existing words, such as "life" and "human," have associations with implications (implications which those scientists understand) for perception and private behavior and public policy, the scientists' nomenclature preferences will be underlain by their different philosophies, and a faction of scientists with one philosophy will want to use different words than a faction of scientists with a different philosophy. The pro-choice side will want us to view the scientific reality (upon which there is no disagreement) through a word filter that will make the pro-choice side look good and feel good, rather than a filter that will make the pro-life side look good and feel good.
Moreover, many existing words, including "life," have multiple meanings that simply invite the unscrupulous to obfuscate. For example:
"The final quote from Robert Wyman (a neurobiologist) makes the most bizarre claim I've ever seen a pro-choice person make. Life doesn't begin at fertilization, they claim, it began billions of years ago. And that is somehow supposed to show that we can't know when an individual human life begins."
I agree that that is what Wyman was trying to show. But to some extent he evades being caught and pinned to the wall, by applying what seems to be intentional obtuseness.
It would matter not at all whether viruses were alive if we didn't reify and virtually fetishize our own categories. A failure to answer that question (are viruses alive?) wouldn't prevent us from acquiring a finely-detailed, even god-like scientific understanding of viruses, if we're otherwise capable of acquiring it.
Just as knowing whether or not an embryo is a person, or a human being, matters not at all, as long as we understand what kind of life it would have if it lives, and understand that if we kill it, we deprive it of that life. Science.

Bessie:
Google offers the people $98 per/hr to complete easy jobs off a home computer .. Labor only for few peroid of time daily and spend greater time with your loved ones . Any one can also apply this best post!!
last Wednesday I got a gorgeous Ford Mustang just after making $14252 this-past/six weeks .without any doubt it is the coolest job however you could now not forgive yourself if you don’t view it.
!me022p:
http://jobs.net-careers.online/?bo0618
??a?v?v???d?i??d?y?a?x?r???q?d??n??b???k???t???l?m?f??a???q?m?g?u?l::::!xe8

Acyutananda:
Bessie, I don't mind your lack of interest in the issue I raised. Thanks for at least not exhibiting misunderstanding of the issue.

arizonaconservativegal #fundie arizonaconservativegal.tumblr.com

how choice-splaining works

pro-life woman: when i had a high risk pregnancy that could have killed me, no one was supportive of my refusal to abort and my doctors were cold to me

pro-life woman: i got pregnant in high school, and every one treated me like a dropout even though i worked hard to graduate

pro-life woman: no one told me about where i could get access to baby supplies, only where the closest PP was

pro-life woman: my doctor pressured me to abort when my unborn child was diagnosed with DS and i had a hard time finding a supportive OB/GYN

pro-life woman: i had to fight for my Title IX rights when i had a baby and my professor wouldn't let me redo a test i missed due to labor

pro-life woman: i really think abortion has negatively affected women's welfare for these reasons

pro-choicer: ummm actually, abortion has nothing to do with those things and pro-choicers care about other stuff besides abortion too????? so shut up :)

WorldGoneCrazy-NotMurderedYet #fundie disqus.com

(referring to article here: https://www.liveaction.org/news/?p=174292)

This article proves once again that those who are "pro-choice" are anti-science.

“I’m reading this as anti-abortion wedge. If an unborn child can be a beneficiary, that makes them a legal person, so how can they be killed?”

And that statement proves once again that those who are "pro-choice" are truly the modern-day equivalents of slavers and Jew gassers.

Bristol Palin #fundie patheos.com

“Armor of Light” – One Sided Propaganda about Misguided Preacher by Pro-Abortion Producer

This post is part of a larger conversation on the subject of Christians and guns at Patheos around the new documentary, The Armor of Light. For more responses to the film, click here.

The above still is from a new movie called “Armor of Light” about a pro-life pastor Rob Schenck who is now a crusader against the so-called “gun culture” in America.

This post in Raw Story calls out my mom, because Schenck uses her as a great example of how Christians should NOT be:

The documentary, “The Armor of Light,” asks whether it’s possible to be both pro-gun and pro-life, according to the website Addicting Info. The film follows Rob Schenck, “an Evangelical minister trying to find the courage to preach about the growing toll of gun violence in America.”

In one scene, Sarah Palin tells a cheering National Rifle Association crowd not to waste ammunition on a warning shot.

In the clip, Palin warns about efforts to “strip away our Second Amendment rights.”

“When pastors, preachers, bible teachers, ignore these questions, it creates a vacuum,” Schenck says in a voice over. “And other voices fill that vacuum.”

At this point Palin goes into a disturbing tirade about shooting first and asking questions later.

“Speaking of which, Joe Biden, remember this, telling women before an assault just to fire a warning shot,” Palin tells the crowd. “Just aim up in the air, that was his directive…Gals, you know that nowadays, ammo is expensive. Don’t waste a bullet on a warning shot.”

The movie is nothing more than liberal propaganda camouflaged as “thoughtful commentary.” The pastor says he caters to the conservatives and Tea Party activists as the camera pans over some photos of the pastor with famous conservatives – including what looks like the Pastor Saeed prayer vigil with Ted Cruz and one of my mom and dad with (apparently) the pastor and perhaps his wife. It looks like it was taken in Alaska. (I asked Mom about it – she doesn’t remember taking that photo and doesn’t remember meeting them.)

You would think — based on the noise around the film — that this film includes some courageous spiritual and moral guidance on guns. Though the pastor says repeatedly that he isn’t trying to have a “political conversation” but a theological one, he never, ever, ever looks to the Bible (which DOES speak to this issue).

Instead, he only looks to politicians and political issues. He says not to get your spiritual counsel from Fox News or the NRA, but from “trusted spiritual authorities.”

What about the Bible as a primary source?

It speaks to the weapon issue, though he conveniently skips the Bible passages that talk about being armed and protecting one’s family. The pastor says he doesn’t want to be labeled as a “liberal,” though he spouts leftist talking points from the first moments of the movie.

The movie goes back and forth between the pastor’s “courageous” and “risk-taking” advocacy against the 2nd amendment and the tragedy that occurred when Michael Dunn shot a black child named Jordan Davis over the volume of music coming from his vehicle. This, of course, is horrible. Our hearts and prayers should go out to the family affected – demolished – by those bullets. (The killer was convicted and is in jail.)

Jordan’s mom Lucy becomes a spokesperson against the Florida “Stand Your Ground” laws, saying that it’s the “will of the Lord” to change that policy. She gets a message from God that people need to see God’s face and repent from the gun culture. “We’ve replaced God with our guns as our protector.”

“Wow. That’s a bold, courageous thing to say,” the pastor says.

“Jesus never advocated violence, ever,” she says.

“I assumed we all thought that way,” he says.

Jordan’s mom isn’t pro-life, but she decides it’s okay to work with someone who’s pro-life like Rob Schenk.

Here’s my question. Since the number of deaths per year by gun users is dwarfed by the number of people killed through abortions, where’s the moment in the movie when he turns to Lucy and challenges HER beliefs that allow babies to get killed? Oh, that’s right — because it’s produce by a pro-abortion activist.

The Pastor keeps asking the most inane question “Can Christians be pro-life and pro-guns?” Maybe he thinks that the swelling emotional music behind the words somehow make them more “important.”

In speaking of the Holocaust, he said, “this is what happens when good people do nothing.”

But how did the “good people” stop those “bad people?” By wearing hipster glasses, making movies, and “having tough dialogues?”

His version of “courage” and “risk-taking” are pretty sheltered.

He must not know the importance of guns to my family, and many other families just like us.

We use those guns to FILL OUR FREEZER. To “live off the land” if you want to call it that. We use those guns to PROTECT ourselves, like many, many other people. Gun’s aren’t used strictly for violence like people want to paint them to be. I carry and I know by carrying its keeping my kids and my household a whole lot safer from creeps like we unfortunately face everyday.

This pastor must have had a pretty sheltered life not needing, or knowing the importance of guns in many American homes.

When a more liberal African American church goer said that God doesn’t call us to be “warriors,” and he says he tends to agree with them more than his conservative Christian counterparts.

It must be nice to sit back in your pew and let others defend you.

But it just sounds cheap and cowardly to me. I think Christians have a DUTY to carry and protect the innocent.

If you want to know what the Bible REALLY says about topics like this, buy my Mom’s new devotional instead of watching this new film:

Sweet Freedom: A Devotional

soli-deo-gloria-abolitionist #fundie #sexist soli-deo-gloria-abolitionist.tumblr.com

Though the abortion rights movement attempts to frame it as a women’s rights issue, the reality is that abortion is a human rights issue. The pro-life community believes that society should have a vested interest in recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of each human being; to that end, human rights and legal protection should be reinstated to humans in utero.

Historically, the population enjoying power and privilege has taken away or redefined freedoms for weaker segments of the population. The abortion epidemic is no different. While recognizing that only women carry children and are therefore affected more than men by pregnancy, we equally recognize that any and all humans should be protected from legal killing- including humans in the womb.

Furthermore, abortion is used as a tool to (a) kill girls through sex-selective abortions, (b) hide abuse in teens and trafficking victims © forced or coerced by fathers, or their family, and (d) perpetuates the lie that women cannot be successful if they have children. The patriarchy tells women that men are successful and we must ve stripped of our inherent womaness and ashamed of our fertility in order to compete in a man’s world. We reject that and fight for an equal world for all humans that recognizes the unique gifts that men and women can both offer. We will not reject our fertility to be more like men and please a patriarchal society.

As one of my favorite slogans goes “liberation cannot be bought with the blood of our children”

A “right” that causes harm and death to an innocent individual isn’t a right worth championing. Pregnancy can be difficult and welcoming an unexpected child can be daunting but many times much of the reason pregnancy is perceived as such in our country is because our society is so hostile to pregnant women, especially pregnant women in the work force. Being pro-life is pro-woman because it recognizes women and their ability to carry new life within them as a positive good for society. It is pro-life organizations who provide support to expecting mothers. It is pro-life organizations who empower women to be strong in carrying their children and seeking non violent solutions. It is pro-life organizations who work to protect mothers from workplace and campus discrimination and help them to persist in achieving their goals without having to sacrifice their children. The pro-choice movement belittles pregnancy and parenthood and feeds women the lie that they cannot achieve anything unless they are barren or unless they sacrifice their children. It completely denies a huge facet of womanhood.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

For the longest time Trump was pro-choice, but then all of a sudden announced that was pro-life when he decided to run on the Republican presidential ticket. At one time Bill Clinton said he was “pro-life” while governor of Arkansas. Then when he ran as a Democrat for U.S. President, he said that he was pro-choice. What a fraud! These politicians have no integrity, no honor and no respectability. We live in a nation of gullible and foolish churchgoers (many are not true Christians). As a whole, the churches are a big problem in America today, because they support satanic Bible revisions, support manmade Illuminati Israel, they are woefully ignorant concerning the New World Order, and they are easily duped to support evil candidates simply because someone claims to be against abortion. What a sad testimony!

I actually heard Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, say publicly that he would vote for an atheist to become U.S. President if he was against abortion. No wonder our nation is in peril! Christians are to give their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, not men. Christians are citizens of Heaven. We are pilgrims passing through here on earth, not settlers. This world is not my home, I'm just-a passing through.

John Coffey #fundie topix.com

I don't care what the "situation" is as you call it. Murder is murder. Plain and simple. Lets get real honest here. The term "pro-choice" is just candy coating abortion. Those that say abortion is ok are not "pro-choice" because the baby has "no-choice". Lets call it what it is. "Pro-death".

dagur-berserker #conspiracy #racist deviantart.com

So recently, one of the anti-white racists and pro-baby killers ended up having the gall and the audacity to ignore the source that I provided for him. It automatically debunks the claim that abortion makes women safe and only attempted to show me sources in which I debunked in the statement. Of course, like the racist he is, dismissed anything automatically from pro-life and conservative research which shows that these people are willingly ignorant and unable to learn. Ironically, he complained about petty insults and that is exactly what he used including the crying argument about me somehow wanting to control women when I am trying to protect women and also protect white America from being snuffed out. It is pretty much summing up the same claims and recycled words from the pro-abortion side claiming that we only want to control women which shows how robotic these people really are and thus are the very definition of the NPC meme. Plus, one of the websites he linked me to, ironically was amnesty.org to argue for his pro-abortion arguments and ironically, I looked it up and lo and behold, the very website was owned by a Jew named Peter Benenson. The Wikipedia article on him, claims that he is a convert from Judaism to Catholicism but seeing what fruits come from his actions thus prove that he is not a Christian but the same kind of Jewish extremist attempting to infiltrate and destroy the morality of the Christian churches that the Spanish Inquisition was on the lookout for.
Matthew 7:16
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
The claim of pro-lifers attempting to control women is ridiculous because those mostly involved with the pro-life movement are female. When I went and volunteered at a pregnancy care center, I was the only male there in a large group of females to raise awareness that there were alternatives to baby killing. Plus, this kind of claim that this is a freedom for women, the argument is flawed and fallacious as there is a fine line between freedom and anarchy and anarchy is when harm is caused because people take so many liberties. Plus, one only needs to be heartless to avoid how much suffering both physically and emotionally this causes the women. Those who claim that women do not suffer from abortion regret ignore some key factors and I’ll explain them.
A study conducted in and published on Stuff.co.nz claimed that 95% of women who had an abortion didn’t regret it and this same claim has been echoed by the pro-abortion mainstream media sites. However, what they don’t tell you is that up to 62.5% of women who have had an abortion absolutely refused to take part in such a survey which is a perfect indication on what is really going on as their hearts are racked with pain over the innocent blood that they have spilt. Plus, to label this as a woman’s issue is fallacious, especially as the democratic party is the only party that has been so fervently pro-abortion but white women still vote in majority for the republican party, the only party that has been or claimed to be pro-life. So, the claim that pro-lifers are trying to control women is a racist claim against white people to silence white women into not having a voice.
Plus, a study in Finland has shown that women who have had an abortion were four times more likely to suffer death in the next year than women who have not given birth. This same study shows that those who died a year later after the abortion that up to 60% of them were more likely to die of natural causes, seven times more likely to commit suicide, four times more likely to die of injuries in the midst of a horrible accident, and 14 times more likely to die from murder in the process. If that isn’t bad enough, the risk of breast cancer actually doubles as a result of an abortion and having more abortions increases the risk even further. I’m not even mentioning all the physical problems of abortion. These aren’t even mentioning the psychological damage these people suffer among abortion.
Among the women who have suffered abortions, 59% increased risk of suicidal thoughts, 61% increased risk of mood swing disorders, and 61% have increased risk of social anxiety disorders. I as a human who experiences a social anxiety disorder though I’ve never spilt blood of anyone my entire life can’t even begin to imagine how painful that might be seeing how bad I have it already and seeing how much worse it could get. I assure you that this is anything but empowerment. Plus, we should also look at the more sociological, cultural, and demographic consequences of this. Although only 34% of abortions have been non-Hispanic whites, the birth rate of non-Hispanic whites is shown to be only 1.79 which is bellow the 2.11 required to sustain a population and I can only assume that abortion is helping the numbers of white people die out even faster. The Pew research shows that whites (non-Hispanic) will be a minority by midcentury. Given the fact that the only majority demographic that doesn’t buy into these hateful anti-white globalist open borders policies of the left are the non-Hispanic whites, this will mean the end of America itself, hence a white genocide.
Those who claim that they are speaking up for women and women’s choices are lying as I’ve stated earlier as white people in general would have determined that Trump get up to 369 electoral college votes if they were the only ones who voted. White women alone would have determined that Donald Trump get 327 electoral college votes if they were the only ones who voted and Trump was the pro-life candidate. Hence, abortion is anti-white women and anti-white racism in general. It is all a trap to trick us into self-suicide and destroy our sovereignty as a people. At least white identitarians like myself aren’t the only ones who see abortion as a threat to our existence as many black identitarians themselves have noticed that abortion threatens their existence as black Americans also have a fertility rate of only 1.8 and yet their demographic consists of 37% of abortions which is the largest of the number of abortions. This is why I as a white separatist, salute black separatists as well so long as they don’t resort to violent means against white people or others. This also goes to show what I’ve been saying that anyone who is for abortion at this point is an anti-white racist.

Williamson, TX County Council #fundie kxan.com

After Williamson County Precinct 3 Constable Bobby Gutierrez retired, commissioners had to appoint a new constable. They interviewed five candidates. And the questions they asked those candidates during the interviews raised eyebrows.

“Was I for gay marriage or against gay marriage?” former candidate Robert Lloyd said he was asked. “The next question was, what was my thoughts on abortion? Was I pro-life or pro-choice?”

“I knew the question was coming about church because in the realm of the questions that were being asked,” Lloyd continued.

Lloyd has more than 27 years of law enforcement experience. He was one of five candidates interviewed for the constable post which pays a taxpayer funded salary of $71,785 a year.

Other candidates have also confirmed to KXAN they were asked about their religion, their stance on abortion and their views on gay marriage. But the Williamson County Commissioners don't see anything wrong with it.

“In general, this is a process that is different than a normal employment interview, because it is an elected position,” said County Commissioner Valerie Covey.

Randy Alcorn #fundie lifestrategies.thingseternal.com

(In a list of pro-life "responses" to pro-choice arguments)

39. "The last three decades of abortion rights have helped make our society a better place to live."

39a. Abortion has left terrible holes in our society.

39b. Abortion has made us a nation of schizophrenics about our children.

39c. Abortion is a modern holocaust we are accomplices to, and which is breeding unparalleled violence.

39d. Abortion is taking us in a direction from which we might never return.

39e. Abortion has ushered in the brave new world of human pesticides.

39f. Abortion has led us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do.

TonyD95B #fundie moonbattery.com

Despite all the Liberal talk about "meaningful debate", "tolerance", "respect", etc, the "Pro Choice" crowd is fundamentally dishonest.

If you cannot respect and accept as valid the simple idea that killing an unborn human being is wrong, you have to be dishonest....or in very deep denial.....or you are hiding another agenda.

If you doubt what I'm saying, just take a look at Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

"Pro-Choice" is a polite euphemism for Pro-Abortion, and this movement is built on a foundation of racism and eugenics.

This is not my opinion, or a "Pro-Life Right Wing Talking Point" - it is historical FACT.

Also, if you doubt the sincerity of the "Pro-Choicers", just look at Sarah Palin. Governor Palin should be a feminist poster girl, but she "ecercised her right to choose" - and comitted the unforgiveable Pseudoprogressive Neofascist Feminist sin of making the "wrong" choice.

Bottom line is, the Pro Abortion Movement and the media that enable them are at best a bunch of lying b#stards - and at worst are more evil than even most of thier rank and file supporters know.

shawn (L-CA) wishes to be in AZ #fundie forum.myspace.com

it wasso funny when it happened in the anti-tobacco group, Ajay came in, endorsing his pro-life group, anti-smoking rights pro-choicers got at him, very funny. "I can do what i want with my body." from "Don't you dare smoke a cirgatte." so hilarious. i can appreciate that now that i am a libertarian.

[So does this mean you're pro-choice now?]

helll bleeping no, it's rather a long explanation on how i work my pro-life values into my libertarian philosophy.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

[Conservapedia's examples of anti-Christian/anti-American "Secularized Language", excerpts of some of the stupidest ones; supposed originals on left, "secularized" ones on the right.]

Godspeed | Be good
All Hallow's Eve | Halloween
Resurrection Sunday | Easter
Thanksgiving | Turkey Day
God bless you, Bless you | Gesundheit
Jesus! | Gee whiz!
Abomination | Mistake
Abortion | Birth control
Anti-Christian bigotry | Separation of church and state
Anti-life | Pro-choice
Founders | Dead White Men
Heathen | Multicultural
Heavenly | Beautiful
Heresy | Scientific theory
Mankind | Humankind
Possessed | Crazy
Pro-abortion | Pro-choice
Sex before marriage | Liberated
Sin | Crime
Soul | Spirit
With child | Pregnant
Christian Name | Given Name

Jon McNaughton #fundie blog.jonmcnaughton.com

Elections are about choice. There were only three choices in this election: Vote for Obama with his entitlement, big government, anti-Christian views; or vote for Romney with his less government, less regulation, stronger military and religious freedom views. The third choice was to do nothing and in effect cast your vote for Obama.

So, was God in this election? Absolutely Yes!!! You may say He offered the American people a “tender mercy.” A tender mercy is a blessing from God that we don’t deserve, but He offers it anyway. America is dying on the vine with our economy in shambles and unemployment at all time highs. We are also in a dangerous situation with our enemies and corruption is running rampant in Washington. We needed a candidate that would help America get moving in the right direction.

But Americans chose a President who is under scrutiny for his actions in Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gun running scandal. They chose a candidate that is Pro-choice at the highest level. They chose a man who ran a deceitful campaign. They chose a man who has demonstrated policies that have hurt the American economy and increased our debt twice the amount of the former President. They chose Obama anyway!

Perhaps they made their choice because Romney was a Mormon? Perhaps they saw in Obama a better chance for them getting a government handout. Perhaps they were pro-choice, pro-Gay rights, or just liked Obama’s smile? We are now a country that leans to the left 51 to 49%. We are past the tipping point.

So where is God in this? He gave America a lifeline…and they rejected it. God is forever merciful, but we ALWAYS have the freedom to choose. I believe that Romney was the tender mercy God sent to help save America.

I’m afraid to see the next chapter of this story. As the polarization widens in this country the time will come when the wicked will have to face the consequences of their actions. Continue to pray with all your might that God will preserve this nation. Our prayers are always answered, but often we don’t see God’s hand until the dust settles.

HM3 Ratigan USN 1987-1993, Once a Doc Always a DOC #fundie forum.myspace.com

taking an innocent life has always been wrong in the eyes of God. Note the emphasis on Innocent Life. For years now the Pro-choice community has attempted to use the bible to justify their desire and supposed right to slaughter their unborn children. They will always be wrong. no matter how often you attempt to gloss over the abortion issue abortion will always be the taking of an innocent life. You can't make killing an innocent child sound Patriotic, or american, or heroic or beautiful. Nor can you convince the pro-life world that abortion is a right guaranteed to all women. Killing is killing not matter how many times you gloss it over. Spending hours upon hours scouring the bible looking for loopholes will not convince any pro-life or God that abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being. Whether that human being be a newly concieved fetus or a 8 month 29 day old baby born a few days early it has a God given right to live. A right given to he or she by God and like or not only God can take away that right. He is the author of life. I know it is not what you pro-choice people want to hear. You don't want to hear that God has control over your lives, bodies and souls. Get over it. Behave and embrace all life and we will all be better because of it.

Randall Terry #fundie ymlp.com

(Randall Terry schmoozes for money for his presidential bid)

Dear Pro-Life Friend,

We have embarked on the long, hard task of recruiting pro-life Americans to run as federal candidates in the 2012 election cycle and beyond. Their purpose: To be a "Voice for the Voiceless;" to create a crisis of conscience for the nation by showing dead babies.

Our position is simple: Ending the Murder of Children Is the #1 Moral and Political issue facing America.

God warns that He will punish a nation that kills her children. The Bible teaches that “shedding innocent blood” is the worst crime that a nation can commit. The following passage is one example of many. Consider the peril America is in:

They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings. Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage; he gave them into the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them. Their enemies oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their power. (Psalm 106: 37-42)

Please understand: America is in great danger. If we are going to save America from God’s judgments, we need repentance, and the political atmosphere in which people make ending this holocaust America’s number one political issue. It is more critical than the economy; more critical than foreign policy; more critical than the debt ceiling.

In fact, as the above passage from the Scripture shows, WE WILL NEVER SAVE OUR ECONOMY, or CURE THESE OTHER ILLS, until we stop killing our children, BECAUSE THE HAND OF GOD WILL BE AGAINST US.

Hence, our goal is to create a crisis of conscience for America, by showing the public the gruesome reality of “safe, legal, abortion;” pictures of murdered babies in TV ads.

(Click here to read this rest of this document)

Please print this out and hand it out to anyone that you think would want to run for Federal office to save babies!

An Embarrassing and Difficult Situation
I despise writing a letter of this nature.

Besides genuine pro-life advocates and supporters, I also have members of the press, pro-abortion activists – and "pro-life people” who wish us ill – who read my letters.

I do not want to give our adversaries fodder to use against us. But I don't see any other option besides praying and telling our friends (and unfortunately our enemies) the truth.

We have seven full-time people on our team that fight in Washington DC. All of us are “missionaries;” we are not paid for our struggle and work. In addition to them, we have about 5 small groups we work with on a regular basis.

None of them, or I, get paid for what we do. We work every day -- usually six days a week -- from 10 to 14 hours a day. (People take breaks and vacations when needed.)

Everyone is supported by friends, family, small part-time jobs, and by kind people who bring over a meal or buy Chinese food.

We literally live hand to mouth.

Abolish Human Abortion #fundie facebook.com

image

We are not the bigots or extremists.

Our opponents, the anti-abolitionists in the pro-life movement and the pro-aborts in the pro-choice movement are the true bigots and extremists!

They are bigots because they think that the younger you are, the more disposable you are, and they are extremists in that they believe an innocent child can be punished to death for the crimes of their father.

Abolitionists are rising up all over the country crying NO MORE COMPROMISE WITH CHILD SACRIFICE!

Are you among them? Against them? Waiting to choose a side?

The Time for True Justice is Now!

masumi5 #fundie youtube.com

(Pro-Life is a ridiculous name. What a low blow. Pro-Choice should be upgraded to 'Pro-Humanity'. "We care about ALL of humanity, you simply care about forcing the population to grow, regardless of whether those babies will be cared for or be able to live happy lives.")

Wow, killing babies. How humane.

And you don't know whether they'll have good lives or not. There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt.

And our planet is not over-populated, if you brought everyone to Texas, they could all have 1 acre of land.

Go pro-life!

mother-child-life #fundie mother-child-life.tumblr.com

[ note this person also is an atheist btw ]

Iget how pro-choicers can see this and feel repulsed and angry. No-one wants to see a pregnant 9 year old, no one. Not me, not betterthanabortion, nobody. It breaks my heart that this little girl is going through this, that she was sexually assaulted, and now she is facing a pregnancy. It’s absolutely upsetting, of course, and I hope whoever did this to her is punished accordingly. The thing about being pro-life is that we view all humans completely equal to one another, even humans in the uterus. So when the baby is born and the mother is in the process of healing physically and emotionally, there will be a new little boy or girl in the world who will be able to live their life. Both children can live, nobody has to die in order to recover from a tragedy. It is very possible for this girl to recover and live her life happily and healthy. I’m sure years from now when the baby is grown she will be happy that she’s alive. See, when I view this situation, as awful as it is, I see 2 children that need to be protected. While the pro-choice side jumps to murder as the only way this girl can recover and live a happy life.

jrestrepo #fundie freerepublic.com

A gay man has the right to marry either a straight/gay woman any time he wants just as gay woman can marry gay/straight man anytime she wants. THAT is equal protection under the law. Being able to marry a “house cat” is a new thing, just as man/man or woman/woman marriage is a new thing. That is the argument. Additionally, if gay marriage is OK, so is plural marriages of any configuration. Legally 10 people could all be married. That is equal protection under the law. Libs providing anecdotal information about a gay couple here or there that has been together for 20 years, etc. is useless. Study after study confirms that man/man relationships are extremely transient.

The issue is that libs continually try to change language to suit their goals. Just like the whole “pro-choice” thing. It isn’t pro- or anti-choice it is pro- or anti-abortion. If you change the language then you deceive people. Marriage has been between males and females for the entire definition of the word. “Health care reform” is another example of that. In all reality, that monster was closer to “insurance reform” but “health care reform” plays better.

Words matter and so do their definitions.

ArcticFox #fundie christianforums.com

In ancient times homosexuality was prevelant in such a way that the writers of the Scriptures felt the need to address the issue specifically. What did they have to say? Although it is not extensive, it is very clear from what exists that homosexual practices are considered a form of sexual deviancy. Romans chapter 1 does the best job of stating this, for homosexual practices are likened to exchanging the glory of God for worthless idols. Somehow, in the mind of Paul (and I believe the inspired writings of Paul), homosexual practices are a form of idolatry and the sacrificing of God's glory for a 'dark' purposes.

There are other verses addressing this issue. I am not sure if they were mentioned, but I would assume so. To the original poster: if you desire, please ask and you will be provided with the necessary Scriptural passages. I don't believe, however, that is your main concern.

I do believe that your main concern is about how to love your neighbor. First, I implore you to consider what standard you consider absolute. Do you believe that standards can 'drift' over time, shifting to fit the needs of an ever-changing society? Or do you believe that there is one standard by which every society in every generation must answer to? We see laws come and go with governments, should we expect the same for religious customs and beliefs?

My firm belief is that the Bible stands as a testament to what God has to say to the world, and that through this medium he speaks words of power that are fully capable of bringing about all that he plans. I believe that this word of the living God teaches us to abhor certain practices labeled as 'evil;' homosexual acts are one such practice. They are lumped together with lying, stealing, murdering, adultery, haughtiness, boastfulness, gossip, etc. (Romans 1:28-32)

So how do we love people who claim that they are 'homosexual?' Do we consider someone who murders a 'murderer' in the sense that a murderer is who he is? Or do we treat a murderer as someone who commits an action that can be repented of and forgiven, allowing progress to be made? Do we consider a pedophile as having a character trait, or a character flaw that needs correction?

The idea of someone 'being homosexual' is a language issue in English that can prevent good discourse from happening. We label individuals as if that is part of their identity, and no doubt many claim that it IS indeed part of their identity. I do not believe so. I do not believe that homosexuality is any more a part of their identity than adultery is part of someone's identity. I do not consider someone a lifetime 'adulterer' with such as their identity; I consider an action or a lifestyle choice (if they continue in it).

I consider someone a 'Christian' in their identity because I believe they are brought into a new identity in Christ (according to Scripture). I believe this then becomes part of who they are, and it is central to their being.

I believe homosexuality is different. Our desires are a combination of natural, built-in desires and those that are programmed into us by our greater culture (society as a whole, i.e. Japan, China, Kenya, etc.), our immediate culture (family/friends/etc), and by ourselves (our own choices, resolves, etc). Having grown up in the states (US), I took to playing chess. I love the game. Now that I live in Japan, I hardly ever play; why is that? It's because one culture instilled in me a desire for something that is common and popular, while the other culture began removing that desire by lack of presence.

After all, how many of you crave sanshoku dango? Or how many of you crave Melon Pan? This are two of my favorite snack foods in Japan, and the craving for these things was non-existant before I came here and began eating them. You cannot crave what you have no experience with. That is not saying that you are unable to crave something because you didn't try it; I'm saying you're unable to crave something that you are unaware of.

How far can someone claim that their homosexual desires are inherent? If they are, is that justification for the practice? After all, some people are inherently more aggressive, but we never use this argument as justification for unwarranted violence. should we not expect the result of sin corrupting the world to end with unholy desires in us? How far can a pedophile or practicer of beastiality claim inherent desire? Where does a culture draw the line and label one 'deviant sexual practice' and label the other 'accepted, inherent sexual desire.'

Do you consider a person 'homosexual' if they have never had relations with an individual of their own gender? If so, that put it on the same level as heterosexuality (something we DO all generally consider inherent and a part of our identity). What about people who consider themselves heterosexual, have never practied homosexuality, yet have occasionally had such thoughts or desires? What label do they carry?

Let me end with a short story that should illustrate the point. It should show how our labels may actually be limiting people who otherwise should not be limited:

I once knew someone who grew up quite normally. Catch is, this individual had problems with the law and discipline. Trouble was constantly around the corner. Eventually, after a normal sexual identity of hetereosexual relationships, this individual delved for a brief time into a homosexual relationship. After ending the relationship, this individual never returned to such practices again, and in fact abhorred them. This individual never went through 'therapy' for such, nor was he pressured for nobody knew about it.

What label does this individual carry, who no longer has any such desires nor feels any identity with homosexuality? Did he make a switch from heterosexual identity to homosexual identity and then back again? Did he only briefly 'experiment' but was neverly truly 'homosexual?' Is he 'bisexual' but represses one sexual identity?

Consider that love for your neighbor will lead you upstream at times. Love, after all, accepts you for who you are, but will never leave you that way. Who loves who leaves a person in all their previous states of sin and sorrow? Who does not seek to build up their friends? If you seek to build up, then you must seek to change, indirectly or directly. If you do not seek to build up, then perhaps you are not such a good friend; this applies to all of us, including me.

Abolish Human Abortion #fundie facebook.com

image

Most every pro-life leader will say how they believe abortion is murder, but their actions are speaking otherwise.

Do we create laws saying people who murder other people must first see a picture (ultrasound) of the other person? Do we say they must use sterile bullets (instruments)? Do we make laws saying they must wait 48 hours before pulling the trigger? Do we say they they must use a "clinic" with wide hallways and overhead sprinklers? Do we say you must first administer anesthesia before you murder the other person? Do we say you must first have the person's grandparent's consent? Of course not! The method doesn't matter. The point is that they are committing murder. They are taking the other person's life.

If the pro-life movement TRULY believed that abortion is murder, their actions would speak volumes, not absolute lunacy. They would embrace bills of total abolition, instead of blocking and rejecting them.

Ryan Anderson #fundie townhall.com

Last week many of us were disgusted to learn Planned Parenthood is harvesting and selling body parts from aborted children. As the largest provider of abortion in America, Planned Parenthood is part of the problem, on the “supply” side. But as we all learned in Econ 101, there’s both supply and demand. What’s behind the demand for abortion? A major factor is the breakdown of the family. And the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage is only taking us further down that road, putting even more unborn children at risk. After all redefining marriage redefines parenthood.

The best protectors of unborn children are a strong marriage culture and people who take the virtue of chastity seriously. But the new consent-based view of marriage reduces marriage to a mere contract and it makes a culture of chastity harder to foster. And, as I explain in my new book, without a culture of chastity, we will never have a pro-life culture.

Indeed, both the pro-choice movement and the movement to redefine marriage reduce human community to contract and consent and limit our obligations to other human beings to those we have freely chosen. Consider their slogans: “My body, my choice.” “I consented to sex, not to having a baby!” “Love makes a marriage.” “Marriage should last as long as the love lasts.” They all reflect the belief that consenting adults should do whatever they want to do, a belief that puts adult desire before the needs of children. And weakening marriage will lead to a culture with more nonmarital sex, thus more nonmarital pregnancy, and sadly more abortion.

Redefining marriage will also increase the use of assisted reproductive technologies. The movement to redefine marriage insists that there are “no differences” between the marital union of husband and wife and the union of two people of the same sex, yet a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child naturally. To achieve full “marriage equality,” then, it will be necessary to turn to modern technology. Same-sex couples must use assisted reproductive technologies—with the assistance of sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate wombs, etc.—so they can “have children of their own.”

smiling-fantasies #fundie smiling-fantasies.tumblr.com

I think abortion is murder. How people can say it isn't? I don't know. A lot of people think that I would be pro-life because I am a Christian, but that is not the case. I am pro-life because I think that murdering people who have already been born is wrong, so, I believe that those who have not been born don't deserve to be murdered either. I hate the argument that a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and it "isn't really a human, its a fetus" arguments. My question is then, what is it? It is a human, its not a turtle in that woman's stomach, its not a parasite or anything else; IT IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING I hate that it's called "pro-choice" LOL WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES CHOICE?! He or she certainly did not ask to be murdered. Honestly, I don't know how people can get abortions. I feel that those who do are heartless and cruel. I think abortions are disgusting and should not be legal. No matter what I would never even consider an abortion. I do not care the circumstances (even if I am young, raped or the baby has issues; mental or physical), it is not an option for me. I will face the consequences if I decide to have sex and get pregnant. If I am raped then I will love it just the same if it was a baby that was not born due to rape, you know why? BECAUSE ITS NOT THE BABIES FAULT. You do not punish an innocent baby by murdering it because of your dumb decisions or because of rape

Danny #fundie irishanddangerous.blogspot.com

[Catholic blogger who doesn't realize the quote he posted is from satirical blog Scrappleface and now believes Obama is the antichrist.]
....He may seem all smooth and hip on the outside, but the things he advocates and says are nothing short of demonic. But, unless you think this is merely an ad hominem attack on Obama, consider his actions.....
Listen to what Obama had to say to NARAL after his losses to Clinton in Ohio and Texas:

“In 1973 alone white doctors aborted roughly 400,000 African-American fetuses. Those people would be 35-years-old this year, and would have been eligible to run for the presidency. But they didn’t make the cut, so to speak. I did. I’m a survivor and that’s the kind of person we need in the White House advocating the pro-choice cause.”


Did you catch that? Those babies aborted 35 years ago "didn't make the cut, so to speak." Obama is gloating about other babies being murdered by abortion and the fact that he did not. How absolutely sick, twisted, and demonic is this man?!

Thomas Yanoti #fundie examiner.com

So, for the time being, America remains a world power. But the great American experiment is taking on leaks, slowly sinking in secularist ideology and popular idolatry. And though we still have the bombs, and the boots for the ground, we have lost a lot of our moral authority. For we are weak, decadent, and the proof is in the American pudding.

Barack Obama is exhibit A. Unpatriotic and weak, he is a baby killing, drone dropping Nobel Peace Prize winner. He is a rhetorical wizard, short on authenticity. He is a class divider, strong armed socialist, anti-Christian pseudo-Christian, anti-American military, Democratic fund raising, golfer.

Exhibit B is American cafeteria Catholicism. Pro-Choice, Pro-gay 'marriage,' Pro-illegal (yes, illegal) immigration, pro-socialism, pro-entitlements, and pro-throwing mud at Church hierarchy in Rome, this group of well polished, pious, miscreants has dragged our nation into immoral muck. All in the name of Jesus.

Exhibit C is power Protestantism. With Mega-Churches, the gospel of prosperity, envy of Holy Mother Church (the Roman Catholic Church), and an all too compromising mentality toward the popular culture, the original spirit of Protestant revolt has turned into the great American sellout. But don't tell Joel Osteen that, he's turning a very big, quick buck!

Exhibit D is the continuation, to this very day, of abortion on demand, and the continuing promotion of abortion and contraception and promiscuity, under the PC banner of 'women's reproductive rights.' Exhibit D is the whoring of Mexicans, Central and South Americans, through illegal immigration, for the sole purpose of keeping Democrats in power through entitlement dollars. Exhibit D is the diminution of American exceptionalism through the wimpy foreign affairs policy of Barack the wimpy. America is no longer the light upon the hill, shining liberty, justice, and truth for the world to see. Now it is just a used care salesman mooing and belching forth a sales pitch for profit.

Third World Christianity is ready to take over. Maybe Obama's evil plan to infiltrate our Southern Border with illegal, entitlement dependent, Democratic voters will backfire. Maybe God will reopen the American vineyard to a new Judeo-Christian Spirit of faith, hope and charity.

inkbleedingdreams #fundie inkbleedingdreams.tumblr.com

I’m going to be totally honest. I’m pro-life, from the moment of conception, in every scenario.
1. If you’re raped, that’s terrible. However, that baby you’re carrying didn’t rape you and rape does not justify murder. Also, I think pro-choicers understand how few abortions are in rape cases.
2. If you can’t handle even carrying a baby to term and delivering it, DON’T HAVE SEX. IT’S NOT NECESSARY TO YOUR LIFE, I PROMISE.
3. I understand that even if abortion was illegal, woman would still try to have them. I understand that it’s more dangerous that way. Quite frankly, if you ruin your health or get yourself hurt or killed trying to kill your own child, I really have no sympathy for you. I don’t for any other type or murderer who dies in the process.

Like, I know this is harsh, but I am so ridiculously sick of only seeing pro-choice crap on my dash. Abortion ends a life. There can be no denying that.

Sharron Angle #fundie trueslant.com

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I’m also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I’m pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Rebecca Kiessling #fundie rebeccakiessling.com

Please understand that whenever you identify yourself as being “pro-choice,” or whenever you make that exception for rape, what that really translates into is you being able to stand before me, look me in the eye, and say to me, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.” That’s a pretty powerful statement. I would never say anything like that to someone. I would say never to someone, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” But that is the reality with which I live. I challenge anyone to describe for me how it’s not. It’s not like people say, “Oh well, I‘m pro-choice except for that little window of opportunity in 1968/69, so that you, Rebecca, could have been born.” No — this is the ruthless reality of that position, and I can tell you that it hurts and it’s mean. But I know that most people don’t put a face to this issue. For them, it’s just a concept a quick cliche, and they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child of rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.


In law school, I’d also have classmates say things to me like, “Oh well! If you’d been aborted, you wouldn’t be here today, and you wouldn’t know the difference anyway, so what does it matter?” Believe it or not, some of the top pro-abortion philosophers use that same kind of argument: “The fetus never knows what hits him, so there’s no such fetus to miss his life.” So I guess as long as you stab someone in the back while he’s sleeping, then it’s okay, because he doesn’t know what hits him?! I’d explain to my classmates how their same logic would justify me killing you today, because you wouldn’t be here tomorrow, and you wouldn’t know the difference anyway, so what does it matter?" And they’d just stand there with their jaws dropped. It’s amazing what a little logic can do, when you really think this thing through -- like we were supposed to be doing in law school -- and consider what we’re really talking about: there are lives who are not here today because they were aborted. It’s like the old saying: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?” Well, yeah! And if a baby is aborted, and no one else is around to know about it, does it matter? The answer is, YES! Their lives matter.

katemarie999 #fundie katemarie999.tumblr.com

[Note: The original poster has since changed her mind on this issue. –shy]

I hate the term homophobia.

HATE IT!

Here’s the definition from dictionary.com: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.

That’s all fine and good. It’s a real thing and there are people who definitely fit those characteristics.

However, let me tell you something vitally important: opposing gay marriage or not supporting a homosexual cause does not automatically make you homophobic by definition!

Pro-life people don’t call the pro-choice position pedophobia (fear of babies and children) or tokophobia (fear of childbirth). Why? Because that’s not what their position is about. They’re not fearful of the other position and they don’t intensely hate pregnant women or fetuses necessarily.

So why is it that someone who won’t make a wedding cake for a gay couple is called a homophobe? Is he fearful of the gay couple or their lifestyle? In most cases, no (if he were, feel free to call him that). Does he intensely hate the gay couple or their lifestyle? Again, in most cases, no. But they have a religious opposition to it and they are obeying their God. Whether or not you think they should be allowed to deny service doesn’t matter, the fact is that you’re calling them names simply because of their beliefs and your insult is probably not even accurate.

By definition, though, a phobia is an irrational fear or aversion. So by calling those who disagree with your position homophobic, you are automatically chalking their opinion up to an irrational fear when, in fact, most people are not frightened of homosexuals or homosexuality. You’re implying that their position is based on irrationality and that there is no logic to it. Basically, you’re name calling.

If you want people who oppose gay marriage to respect your opinion, you have to respect theirs. Disagreement isn’t irrationality. Calling those who disagree with you a name that basically implies that they’re stupid for believing what they believe is bullying.

I’m not going to share my opinions on gay marriage. They’re irrelevant. I just intensely dislike the word “homophobia” because it’s insulting to a group of people who may have some valid concerns if you stopped name calling and listened.

In order to find a middle ground, you have to respect both opinions. I believe a middle ground is possible. So people on both sides, stop being bullies and start respecting each other.

Holy Roller #fundie christianforums.com

[Originally Posted by wanderingone
Do you mean why are "believers" anti choice and non believers pro choice?

Because surely you don't believe prochoice people are "pro" abortion?

What kind of "believer" do you mean? Hare Krishnas? Jews, Catholics? Lutherans? Pentecostals? Scientologists? Pagans?

I'm a Christian, I am pro-choice.]

I will now officially call into question anyone's salvation who also alleges to be pro-abortion.

Noguy #fundie comments.deviantart.com


Like Nazis, the pro-choice movement dehumanizes its victims; it treats the unborn as sub-humans, like the Nazis treated the Jews. The hypocracy of the situation is that many pro-choicers oppose the death penalty for criminals, but have no problems with killing innocent unborn children.

Projecting My Psychopathy Award

Chopper9760 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

These questions come up in my mind when I've spent all day watching a Law & Order marathon.

On this show, people perjure themselves all the time to protect mothers, fathers, siblings, children (rarely spouses), and when at the very end of the episode, the detectives drag the truth out of them (namely, that they knew all along that mom, dad, sis, son was, in fact the murderer), they say, as if it's obvious and self-explanatory, "BUT SHE'S MY MOTHER," or fill in the other first-degree relative.

So I'm asking: would you perjure yourself in court to protect your parent, sibling, or child, knowing they were guilty?

Separate question: would you take the rap (jail) for your guilty parent, sibling, or child? (I'm presuming you wouldn't take the death penalty.)


I'd perjure myself for my folks but I don't think I'd take a murder rap nor would they let me.

might not agree with my dad for killing my neighbor with a snow shovel but if I could convince myself that he wasn't going to kill ALL my neighbors w/ snow shovels, I'd probably help him get away with it.

I think David Kaczynski was a hero but I'd have to be convinced my folks were a danger to society before I held up my social responsibility to rat on them. I'm selfish that way.

As for sex crimes, well, I figure my family's experience with sex crimes has informed my opinion of killing people.

Serious? Even if he did it without any real justification?What you think there's some special legal or moral privilege that attaches to having been a victim of sex crimes, that doesn't count for murder? I don't. And I've been a victim.

Bear in mind that I haven't advocated my actions from a legal, moral, or even a logical standpoint. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard of justice.

That being said, are you really surprised that I value my loved ones more than the social contract? I picked an extreme example as a way of finding my own personal limit. I would imagine I'd be quite conflicted if I knew Mom or Dad killed someone with no provocation. However, if I saw an opportunity to get them out of trouble I would take it.

I haven't murdered the sex offenders in my own family but I'm not going to be upset if someone else does. I only raised the sex crimes issue to point out a personal hard limit - I can wrap my mind around helping my folks get away with murder but I could never defend them if they committed a sex crime.


So you're saying you're advocating actions you, yourself, think are immoral and illogical?
So you've never made a choice that you knew was wrong? I have a hard time believing you've seriously considered the hypothetical.

I'm saying that I would, in certain circumstances, chuck my morals and rationality for 2 people in a world of, what, 6,000,000,000? That doesn't make me an asshole, that makes me a normal member of society.

You nailed it earlier when you mentioned the justice system. LEO's aren't supposed to investigate family, your relations won't end up in the jury box and our spouses are often exempt from testifying. We've built our society with an acknowledgement of the importance of familial relationships.

MrDibble, I think you have unrealistic expectations of yourself and others. Further, I think slightly irrational balls-to-the-wall loyalty for a small number of people is just as important as trying to be a good global citizen.


View Post

Really, it boils down to a simple question - how can anyone justify helping someone get away with murder? "Because they're family" doesn't quite have enough of an explanatory power to me. Why should it?

Justify is perhaps a poor word choice as we've posited the example of someone we know is guilty. The choice to commit perjury is inherently unjustified no matter what crime we're talking about, that's why it's perjury.

Why would I (in some circumstances) perjure myself so a loved one could escape a murder charge they were guilty of? Because I'd rather have my loved one free and not in prison. Because I value my family over society.

I'm not going to break that way every time but I can imagine doing it.

Kandy Fire N Ice #fundie disqus.com

(responding to story “Calif. Man Charged With First-Degree Murder After Allegedly Forcing Girlfriend to Ingest Abortion Pill at Gunpoint”):

I wonder if any Pro-Choice men and women will come here and defend this woman who did not want to end her pregnancy. Her choice was to continue this pregnancy. But was forced by the father to end her wanted pregnancy. The Pro-Choice men and women always says it should be the woman's choice not the mans choice. So how come these men and women are not coming to her defense?

CALVIN FREIBURGER #fundie liveactionnews.org

image
In their never-ending quest to impugn the motives of pro-lifers, abortion defenders have accused us of hypocrisy because some support the death penalty and others oppose various government benefits.

Another variation of this attack has surfaced in our comment threads recently. Sharon Rose says the only way we can justify opposing abortion would be if we’re “equally and as vehemently against war, against the death penalty, against killing of any kind.” Astraspider asks if we respected human life “when we punished 100,000 Iraqis with their lives to avenge 3,000 of our own deaths they had nothing to do with[.]” The alleged hypocrisy of simultaneously being pro-life and “pro-war” is a very popular talking point.

But as with many other pro-abortion efforts, the logic of this attack doesn’t extend beyond the superficial. To start by getting the obvious out of the way, the pro-life movement isn’t of one mind on foreign policy, meaning pro-aborts will need to find some other reason to hate those of us who don’t fit their generalization.

The claim doesn’t fare much better against the rest of us, either, because nobody is simply “pro-war” in the sense that it’s something to celebrate, as if they value conquest and bloodshed for their own sake. Everybody supports American involvement in some wars (just about everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees on World War II, for instance) and opposes involvement in others, based on the unique circumstances of particular cases.

We could endlessly argue the merits of our nation’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any number of other conflicts throughout our history, as well as the various mistakes made in each one. Such a debate, however, would depend largely on hotly contested factual questions, in-depth historical analysis, and navigating the nuances of international politics, and therefore falls more within the scope of a foreign policy website than a pro-life one.

Suffice to say, proponents of a given military action believe their cause is warranted under just war theory: it is meant to end or prevent a greater loss of life than that of the war itself, non-violent alternatives have been exhausted, effort is made to spare civilians as much suffering as possible, etc. Such judgments may be correct or mistaken depending on the case, but they don’t constitute a devaluing of human life.

What our critics are really saying, then, is that we have to be pacifists in order to truly be pro-life. Which is an absurd standard, considering that no right other than thought is completely without limitation. Is it “anti-freedom” to support imprisoning felony convicts? Is it “anti-speech” to support libel laws? Is it “anti-life” to let police officers use lethal force? Clearly not. It’s entirely reasonable, principled, and consistent to value a right while recognizing limitations on it when it comes into unavoidable conflict with other rights.

Lastly, and most importantly, the potential wrongness of any given war and of those who support them has no bearing on the case against abortion. We could concede the wrongness of every single war this nation’s ever fought, and it still wouldn’t justify letting us slaughter the unborn. There is simply no comparison between killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield and the needless and killing a baby in the womb. The former (in just wars) involves someone who knew the risks going in and has defensive capabilities, and is meant to save lives in the long run. The latter involves an innocent, defenseless victim, and saves nobody.

Indeed, abortion’s death toll still dwarfs the American casualty count of every major war we’ve ever fought, and matches the combined total. Crying hypocrisy isn’t enough to clean the blood off abortion defenders’ hands.

Dan Fisher #sexist patheos.com

“If elected, I will do everything in my power to bring this evil to an end and take executive action to ensure that all Oklahomans are equally protected, including the preborn,” the former Oklahoma state representative said in a video posted to his campaign’s YouTube page last week. “I will disregard any unjust rulings or perversions of the U.S. Constitution that claim that there is a right to murder preborn human beings in the womb.”

Fisher said in the video that anti-choice laws passed by Republican lawmakers “really only spell out the requirements for killing a preborn baby,” suggesting that they don’t go far enough. “Every one of these pro-life laws affirm abortion as legal, treat it as an acceptable choice, and seek to regulate the practice. If you think about it, these laws are basically pro-choice.”

“I am not running for governor of Oklahoma as a pro-lifer,” he said. “I am not running to regulate abortion. I am running to abolish it.”

Steve Bates #fundie books.google.com

ABORTION IS MURDER MADE LEGAL
Legalizing the killing of the innocent unborn in the womb is no less heinous a crime than if it was made legal outside the womb. Inside the womb, it is called abortion. Outside the womb, it is called murder. One is punishable. The other is excused.
GOD JUDGES BOTH MURDER.
The Bible teaches unborn life is a wonder work of God. and the unborn are accounted human, as a person named in God's census record. Earth time is for personal growth after birth. No one grows up in eternity. No one grows old. Every person is mature. There are no Pamper stations heaven.

The patriarch Job. after his trials (the destruction of his goods and the death of his children) had his possessions restored double. God gave Job double the lost animals and twofold his original wealth. Job. however, was given the same number of children. His family had doubled. Job had ten children on earth in time and ten children in heaven in eternity (Job 1:2; 42:12-13 KJV).

THE ABORTED CHILD A CITIZEN IN ETERNITY

God has named the unborn child. The plan of God for the aborted child has not been thwarted. In eternity, the mother
will meet God and she will meet her aborted child. The baby will have become a mature adult.

Every mother having undergone an abortion is even now loved and wanted by God in God's family more than the mother wanted and loved the child she aborted. God loves you and your Child. Jesus died to save both.

ADOPTION SURPASSES ABORTION

No child is an unwanted child. Pro-choice makes children perishable. Jesus alone was born to die. He was birthed. He died at the hands of men. No child should die at man's hand by abortion. Exercise you fingers, walking the Yellow Pages under adoption services, and your child can walk the pathways of life.

MURDER FOR HIRE

Abortion is a business; murder for profit . . . profiting at the expense of dying children. The death-dealing abortionist can and does command more money for killing healthy children in the womb than curing sick children to live in the world.
Abortion mills . . . America's death camps ... are a shameful blight upon the nation. They clutter every state in the country.

Politicians, preachers, and spokespersons advocating abortions are themselves beneficiaries of a right-to-life choice. Pro-abortionist can advocate abortions because their mothers were anti-abortion.

Abortion is a heathen practice, and man is never at liberty or given license by God under any condition to kill the innocent child. On April 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned murder. God's law is no longer the law of the land. America cannot truthfully call itself a God-fearing Nation. Politically, paganism has prevailed and America will cease to be great to the degree America ceases to be godly.

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are now free to bravely kill the most voiceless, innocent, and defenseless in America . . . unborn children. A death storm rages on the womb front. America's holocaust is abortion ... condemned in God's Word, the Bible ... the Book of Life.

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life; and the life was the light of men.
-John 1:3-4 KJV

jlujan69 #fundie christianforums.com


I've noticed that those of us who are pro-life and call abortion "murder" don't go all the way and support decades to life imprisonment or even capital punishment for those who perform abortions, and certainly not for the ones who consent to its being done in the first place--the pregnant women themselves. Abortion equals murder and those who murder are murderers and even the Scriptures advocate the ending of the life of the murderer, yet we don't. Is our calling it "murder" more of a political statement, designed to get attention (as happens so often in politics and the media, anyway) than to accurately convey what we actually feel it is? IOW, why the seeming inconsistency between our publically labelling abortion as such, yet our silence when it comes to suggesting the most severe punishments under law? Have we re-defined murder so that a particular form of it does not merit the harshest penalties? Isn't it time we figure out exactly what we think of it as and take the appropriate action and advocate the proper punishments?

Mr. Coulter #fundie godorscience.com

[responding to a poster who claims that pro-choice people are misled]

Yeah, and an abortion is a 'simple procedure'. The difference between me and you Buck, is that I dont cuddle overt sin or sinners. Your Bible passages are used to make yourself feel vindicated for not standing up to evil. I cant resist, Paul and the vipers was an episode where Paul is suffering persecution. He wasnt turning a blind eye on evil because it has free will. Only when you are seeking approval do you babble righteousness. Give me 'the what for' in name calling, while calling me names. How is someone forced into an abortion? You are giving excuses. Which is what I called out. Pro-choice also means 'absent of consequense' and you affirm that with your foolish 'forced into it' reason.

"Not everyone who is pro-abortion/pro-choice is evil", is about the most asinine statement made by you yet. I cant think of a better measuring stick in determining evil than how one will treat the "most defenseless of us". "Mis-led?" another excuse, typical.


The castration of women offends you like the explaination of homo sex offends you. If the concern of being barefoot and pregnant is so horrific, hell, just remove your ovaries. That is how we prevent dogs from getting pregnant, and they survive just fine. That is not a complicated procedure, and both sides of the issue would be solved. Confused, we will play with your 'pretend faith' on another day.

I was reading on the AIDS in Africa. Your exposed breast culture statement seems to be the very thing exploited, thus making AIDS the epidemic it is there. It seems there is a 1 in 3 chance that a baby can contract AIDS through breast milk. So, encouraging breast feeding will only insure that babies will contract AIDS over there. The 'education' in caring for children is taught by teaching mother's proper breast feeding principles. Seeing that the breast is always exposed insures that the baby can go to the 'AIDS well' without hinderance.

Jane #fundie jenniferfulwiler.com

I struggled with the abortion question recently after Palin became the VP candidate. I’d always been pro-life, but my church admits the common exceptions of rape, incest, and the mother’s life being in danger, and so did I. Pro-life but not extreme, if you will.

I didn’t even know that there were pro-life people who took exception to these exceptions.

But if I think of a “fetus” as a human being, as anyone who is remotely pro-life usually will, then these exceptions make no sense whatsoever. Who are we to say that a mother whose life is in danger has more right to live than the fetus/baby inside her? If we submit to God’s will, it seems that He should be making those decisions.

The exceptions seem to me to be a way to waffle forever.

HM3 Ratigan USN 1987-1993, Once a Doc Always a DOC #fundie forum.myspace.com

You have to understand. The Pro-choice machine has ordered him to believe that the only way a baby can be created is the only way they say it can be. To hell with basic biology. To hell what cameras inside the womb has proven. Planned Parenthood has commanded him to believe it is a blob of tissue with no human features for the first 12 weeks. Please note the Planned Parenthood Diclaimer. (Special disclaimer: Planned Parenthood reserves the right to change and alter the way the fetus developes at it's discretion. And when said orgainization deems it needed to change said fetal development it must be accepted as gospel!!)

The Pro-choice movement is built on lies and violence. It has been founded on deception and lies from it's very beginning. but since they usually shout the loudest and make sure that all of their "Experts" have lots of fancy titles after their names everything they say will hailed as gosple!!!

Me #fundie forum.myspace.com

Pro-Life has nothing to do with religion.
Pro-lifers are pro-women, we believe
women deserve more than men. Abortion
is the idea that women need to kill and have
a surgery to gain equality to men (something
inachieveable anyways) and there's no
excuse or reason for abortion in this day and
age, you say you pro-choicers are pro-women,
yet you are killing us females everyday, how
does that make sense? How can you be a
damn commie when communists are so currupt?
Theres no avoiding it either, the commie curroption,
like the whole "theres 40 pigs and 200 ppl" scanario.
Communism doesnt work, sorry kid. Anyways, back
to the subject at hand... You say that you believe
in equal rights, but yet men cant get abortions, so
its soley a womans choice, undermining a man who,
say, would like to have his child.

Dan Holman #fundie armyofgod.com

George Tiller was not your run-of-the-death-mill baby-killer. He was symbolic of the baby-killing industry. He grew in stature as he handily overcame personal obstacles and professional accusations. He made the black art of baby-killing acceptable, perhaps even noble to the public at large.

Tiller represented the baby-killing industry as their point man. He was the face that baby-killing Americans came to love, and pro-lifers love to hate. With legal impunity, wearing a shark-skin suit, Tiller killed the “big babies” with a smile.

Tiller was well connected, especially after the November Republican defeat. He did not squander his fortune, as most baby-killers do, on wine, women, and drugs; he invested wisely in politicians. Pro-choice to kill Governor Sebelius kept her protégé’ from being charged and convicted of a litany of violations of Kansas law. A rising star in Obama’s administration Sebelius would have taken Tiller along with her. Maybe even a Surgeon General.

Wichita’s perpetual beacon of hope, Troy Newman, promised Tiller’s head on a platter. But every attack on Tiller was thwarted. Hoping against hope Troy petitioned Kansas’s Medical Board to pull Tiller’s license. Poppycock! That simply would not happen. Tiller, acquitted of violating Kansas’s laws, was in no serious trouble with the medical board.

The David and Goliath routine was looking bad for David until an unknown champion appeared on the scene. God’s chosen instrument, with a single bullet to the braincase slew Goliath. Rather than take courage from this change of fortune, Troy and his camp ran the other way thinking “Boy, the Philistines are going to be pissed!”

Sweating bullets, Troy was the first to apologize to both the pro-aborts and pro-lifers. “And gee, we were so close to getting Tiller’s medical license pulled!”

Now that we have set the stage, let us examine the pre-text for why Troy and others renounce this shooters brave, unselfish act: Troy tells us that the shooter is a “coward” and a “vigilante.” We all know what a coward is but the definition of a vigilante is “any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.”

We do not know if the shooter's motive was vengeance or if he was acting in defense of the pre-born. The definition for self-defense and defense of others is “the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.”

Self defense and the defense of others is justifiable homicide.

This defense is denied Tiller’s shooter as our laws do not recognize the humanity and worth of the pre-born. Those of us who do recognize the person of the Preborn should understand that the use of force is justifiable in protecting the pre-born children, but such is not the case.

In the posts that I have read from Troy and others they assume the shooter’s motive to be vengeance, rather than defensive action. Troy was quick to condemn Tiller’s shooter without knowing his true motive. You can stab a man’s character as surely as you shoot his person.

I proffer this fine distinction because it is important to hand-wringing soul-searching theologians sorting through the dainty innuendos, presuppositions, and new and old winds of doctrine.

But I do not believe the shooter’s motive to be important, as it amounts to defensive action no matter what his motive was.
Tiller was a serial killer. He killed the week he was killed, and like the punctual rape of every blessed day, he was scheduled to kill again. The shooter’s bullet, like David’s stone, stopped Tiller’s bloody hands cold.

But along with the death of George Tiller, is the toppling of the invincible baby-killing idol of aborticide.

Like the Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz, news of Tiller’s death was at first hard to believe. While many of us broke into a joyful song, others broke into a shameful retreat.

Sen. Todd Weiler (R) #fundie thinkprogress.org

The Utah lawmaker who introduced a state resolution declaring pornography a “public health crisis” has taken his opposition a step further. During a conservative talk radio appearance on Friday, state Rep. Todd Weiler (R) said that the internet, essentially, violates a person’s First Amendment rights by “delivering pornography” to people who don’t want to view it.

“Someone may have the First Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to view pornography,” Weiler told Tony Perkins, host of “Washington Watch” radio show. “But what about my First Amendment right not to view it?”

This interview comes days after Gov. Gary Herbet (R) signed Weiler’s bill into law.

At first, Weiler specifically blamed McDonald’s for having free WiFi that did not block porn sites. According to Weiler, kids often go to McDonald’s or public libraries to watch porn on their WiFi networks — especially if it’s blocked on their home internet.

“If these libraries and McDonald’s were delivering cigarettes to our children, we’d be picketing them,” he said.

Weiler’s understanding of the First Amendment is deeply flawed, however. The amendment specifically bans laws that prohibit a person’s ability to exercise free speech. It does not, however, ban a person from NOT viewing another’s act of free speech. That’s like saying the amendment protects a pro-choice advocate’s right to never encounter anti-abortion protesters.

Instead, Weiler’s argument rests on his inability to control how others browse the internet. But exerting control over another person’s behavior in that way isn’t a constitutional right — far from it.

Weiler said he’s working with U.S. Senator Orin Hatch (R) to create a way for internet users to “opt-in” to online porn, rather than using parental filters to opt-out of porn sites.

unapologetically-indie #fundie unapologetically-indie.tumblr.com

["If u were truly pro-life wouldn't u be against the death penalty, since being pro-life means to oppose the taking of life?"]

Being pro-life and pro-death penalty are no where near the same thing. [...] Abortion is the killing of an innocent life, whereas the death penalty is the ending of a life of a convicted killer who is guilty of a crime. An unborn baby has not committed any such crime.

["U r pro-white and like sushi and chinese food, hypocrite much?"]

What does being pro-white have to do with liking or not liking sushi or Chinese food? You clearly don not know what "pro-white" means. Let me explain it for you. Pro-white means that I am proud of my race, that I refuse to date outside my face or have children with someone who isn't white. What does this have to do with the kind of foods I eat?

["U r an "anti-feminist"? So are you ok being treated below men, being payed significantly less or just not being hired b/c u r a woman?"]

Women and men are equal but different. Period. As a woman, no - I am not equal to my husband. I am submissive to him as he is the head of the household. Women get away with a lot more things in today's society than men do, contrary to popular feminist belief.

Katie Yoder and Malread McArdle #fundie newsbusters.org

Cameras swarmed around abortion supporters trying to interrupt this year’s annual March for Life, but will journalists report an event that shows groups like Planned Parenthood in a bad light?

During the 2016 March for Life Friday, a few dozen pro-abortion activists staged a “die-in” by lying down outside the U.S. Supreme Court to represent women dying from back-alley abortions. It was the second year straight where radical protesters tried to halt the thousands who came to D.C. to speak for the voiceless. Last year, the group’s behavior caused arrests at the march.

The group Stop Patriarchy took credit for this year’s event. Surrounded by tens of thousands of marching pro-lifers as well as police, abortion supporters wearing white pants stained with red dye dropped down on the sidewalk.

The pro-abortion demonstration, held on the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, ironically followed in the footsteps of the pro-life movement, which often organizes die-ins for the millions of babies destroyed by abortion since United States legalized abortion.

While women who had endured having abortions shared stories of regret into a microphone, the pro-abortion activists tried to drown them out with a megaphone. The radical protesters couldn’t dedicate a second of respectful silence to the women in grief from losing their babies.

Mocking pro-lifers, they chanted, “pro-life, your name’s a lie, you don’t care if women die,” along with the typical slogan, “abortion on demand and without apology!” They also held up signs reading “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” and “keep your theology out of my biology.”

Last year, eight of the group’s frenzied members were arrested by police after blocking the peaceful march. Major media outlets predictably failed to report it.

No arrests were made this year, but police held out handcuffs while facing the activists, many of whom wore Planned Parenthood and NARAL paraphernalia.

MRC Culture (MRCC) asked one woman with a Planned Parenthood sign, “When you do think a baby becomes a person?”

“I’m not sure,” she responded. “I’m positive I believe in first trimester abortions. And that is when the majority of abortions happen, and that is what I’m here to fight for.”

When asked about third trimester abortions (“Do you think a that the baby is a person then?”), the abortion supporter called abortion a “personal healthcare decision”.

“That’s not my call,” she said. “I think that’s up to the woman and her doctor.”

Another abortion supporter told MRCC, “Raising a child is not a joke. Being pregnant is not enough reason to bring a child into a world where it is not wanted. … We’re not about killing babies. We’re about freedom. We’re about the choice.”

“We’re about the continuation of life, after life already happens,” she continued. “A baby is not a fetus is not baby is not a fetus. Period.”

When asked when the baby does become a person, the woman said, “When a child is born and living outside of its mother.” The woman declined to describe the difference between a baby inside and a baby outside the womb.

A third pro-abortion woman declared, “We’re protesting for every woman’s right to be able to choose what happens with their body and to eliminate the oppression by the patriarchy and the sexist system that we life in.”

She also said she believed a fetus “becomes a baby when it’s born.”

“The baby inside, when most women get an abortion, it is not a child yet, it is a clump of cells,” she insisted. “So you can’t really say that we’re killing babies.”

Gods_Watchman #fundie tv.msnbc.com

[In response to someone saying they are "highly pro-choice"]
Tell us wiscodemo; what exact qualities and standards define you as "HIGHLY" pro-infanticide?
-
For instance, would Kermit Gossnell be shocked, interested or dismissive of your stand on murdering innocent helpless children without due process?
-
Would King Herod the Great find your enthusiasm for crushing babies skulls thrilling, appropriate, or lackluster?
-
Would Joseph Mengele find your fervor for exterminating children offensive, reasonable or puny?
-
When you stand before the Judgment Seat, how will you rationalize being "highly pro-infanticied?"
-
Just wondering...

KatieMarie999 #fundie #wingnut katiemarie999.tumblr.com

@Anonymous

Katie, I just want to tell you I don't give a rat's ass that you think we can still be friends because I honestly wouldn't touch your raw chicken looking ass with a ten foot pole... anyone propagating that a clump of cellular life is more important than the financial, medical and psychological wellbeing of an already existing human being is a fucking sociopath


Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

I’m impressed that you’ve been able to diagnose me and about 50% of the population with a personality disorder based solely on one position on one issue.

I mean if you’re on anon, I assume you’re not someone I’ve ever spoken to before because I have faith in my friends and even in the people who just follow me from a distance. They’re good people, regardless of what side they’re on. And I don’t believe any of them would ever send hate anons to anyone. I hope one day, the same can be said for you.

I’m not going to have an argument with you. I don’t want to waste my time trying to talk to someone so intolerant that they’re willing to send something this immature. So here is a lovely pro-life master post someone made. Lots of great information about embryology and the ways the pro-life movement are helping women in need.

I don’t reach my beliefs or positions blindly, which is why I don’t align myself with a political party or with either liberalism or conservatism. I don’t sit here twirling my fake mustache asking myself “how can I hurt and oppress my own sex today for no reason?” If that’s what you think about the pro-life cause, perhaps you should do some research. I’d recommend logging off tumblr, to start.

O Rei do Frango Assado #fundie shenmuedojo.net

When my mother got pregnant of me, doctors said that both she and I would likely die and that she should have an abortion. Luckily, she's completely against it and she could never do such a thing. Well, despting knowing that we could both die, she carried on and delivered. And her I am, a healthy man and my mother is also still alive. God bless her!
I don't know if there's life after death, but if there is and if dead people can haunt the living (I don't actually believe in that stuff, by the way) and I happened to be an aborted person, I'd haunt my mother for the rest of her days.

When your own mother decides to kill you, that's as bad as it can get. There's no one in this world that I trust more than my mother. I'd gladly put my life in her hands, for I know that the love of my mother for me knows no bounds. The same can be said about my love for my mother. Whenever I think that there are women who have no problem in disposing of their own children, as if they were some kind of parasite, I become apalled.
Painful death is what they deserve.


You see, I've always said that I find surprising that abortion is a cause for debates. After all, we never see anyone talking about whether or not homicides should be made legal.
I think the reason for that is because it is just much easier to kill off someone who's still inside a womb. Someone that no one sees, hears and knows. As they say: out of sight, out of heart...

No matter how many problems a woman has, it is no excuse to make an abortion. It is far worse than rape, which many people seem to regard as the most terrible crime ever. When a woman is pregnant, she just has to deal with it.

And I find it funny how people who are for abortion like to call themselves "pro-choice". Women make their choices when they decide to have sex (except in the case of rape, but, in that case, they can just put the child up for adoption. Maybe even keep the child. There are many women who kept their children who were the result of rapes. After all, that doesn't change the fact that it IS their children too, not just the rapists'.
Sure, raping is a terrible crime and, if it was up to me, I'd have all rapists completely castrated, but that is no excuse to kill your own child. That'd just make the woman who did it much worse than the rapist). And no, an abortion isn't deciding what you do with your own body. It is deciding what you do with someone else's.
One could also say that it is the psychopath's choice to get an axe and cleave someone's skull.

Like I said, just as a newborn child is developing into a fully functioning adult, so is an embryo.

And by the way, many people seem to think that all who oppose abortion are religious fanatics. This has nothing to do with religion. I'm not religious myself. It is just a matter of having some good sense.

Abby Johnson #fundie lifesitenews.com

I WAS WILLING TO GO TO HELL FOR LEGAL ABORTION...AND THEN I SAW ONE.

Every day, I took the same route to my house from the Planned Parenthood facility I managed. The marshals that came to provide “safety training” for us once a year recommended we change up our route home. They came to warn us about how dangerous the pro-lifers were outside our facility. Ha. “You never want to take the same route home. Always change it up. You never know when one of them could be following you,” they said.

I wasn’t too worried about the pro-lifers outsidemy facility. I knew them. They knew me. They were always offering me help and seemed to genuinely care about me. That was annoying. It was basically impossible to hate people who were so nice to me, even though I had been taught to hate them by all of my supervisors. On September 26, I had seen something that had shaken me to the core. I had watched a 13 week old baby die by abortion. I watched him struggle for his life. I saw it right in front of my face on an ultrasound monitor. I was numb, shocked, horrified…and quite honestly, I felt so stupid. How could I have fallen for the lies of this organization? How could I have let it happen for eight years?

On October 4, I sat in my living room, held my daughter and wondered. Did I have the guts to admit that I had been wrong for so many years? Did I have the courage to admit that I was a liar? I hate liars…and I realized that I had been the biggest one I knew. Could I walk away from my friends? Could I walk away from my huge salary and promise of promotion?

That Sunday afternoon, I didn’t know. I didn’t want to leave. I didn’t want to be uncomfortable. But I just couldn’t justify what I had seen. I knew I couldn’t rationalize my behavior, my life.

For several years, I had asked myself a question: “If I died, would I go to heaven or hell?” I remember thinking that I would probably go to hell for my active and proud participation in abortion. And somehow, I had convinced myself that was okay…that I was willing to spend an eternity in hell in order to provide abortions.

But on October 5, I sat in my office and asked that same question. This time, my answer was different. No, I was not willing to possibly spend an eternity in hell so that women could continue to take the lives of their children. No, I would no longer be an accomplice to this brutality. But where would I go? Would these pro-lifers really accept me? I mean, they always said they would, but how could I believe that? How could they just accept me…knowing my past? How could they forgive me for how I had treated them for so many years? I didn’t know what their reaction would be, but I knew I had to take that chance.

So, I took a left instead of a right out of our parking lot. I drove to their office. I spilled my guts. I admitted that yes, I had been wrong…so wrong.

And they forgave me. They didn’t start listing off the faults of my past. They didn’t make me grovel or give an apology. They just forgave.

I remember after my story hit the national news, a reporter had called and asked to talk to one of the staff members from the pro-life office where I had turned for help. This reporter wanted the scoop. How bad was I when I worked in Planned Parenthood? What were some of the terrible things I had done to them out on the sidewalk?

I was waiting for all of my embarrassing, dirty laundry to be aired when she answered his questions. But instead, this is what I heard from her. “I don’t even know that person anymore. Abby is a new creation in Christ and that’s the Abby I want to talk about.”

I had never known love like that from a friend. And now I had it…from a woman that I had only met three weeks earlier…from a woman who I had cursed and yelled at…from a woman who had seen the very worst side of me. But here she was, offering me this gift of forgiveness. Certainly it was a gift that I didn’t deserve from her. But there it was, no strings attached. I often think about that moment and realize that is probably the closest thing to Christ’s forgiveness that I will ever experience here on earth. The slate was wiped clean.

Can you love people into truth? Absolutely. I think the better question is: are you willing to? Are you willing to look past their sin and see the creation that God made? Are you willing to reach out with mercy and love instead of anger and condemnation? Are you willing to just meet people where they are and care for them no matter how far they are from where you want them to be? Can we attempt to love like God loves?

It always makes me laugh when I tell people how many abortion clinic workers have left their facilities through my ministry, And Then There Were None. They are so shocked! They can’t believe 128 people have come to us in the past two years. Who knew these people could have such a profound change of heart? We pray for this to happen, and then when it does, we are surprised!

Friends, these workers are leaving the abortion industry because they are finally able to see that there is real help for them. They don’t leave because people have told them that they are “baby killers.” They certainly don’t leave because someone tells them they will “burn in hell” for working in the industry. They leave because we are now able to give them help and healing. They leave because they want something better for themselves. They leave because we are finally helping them see that we do genuinely care about them.

We always need to remember that these workers are not our enemy. Abortionists are not the enemy. Our enemy is sin. No matter how rude they are to us, no matter how much they ignore us, no matter how many times they tell us to “get a job” or something similar…they WILL eventually leave. But that will only happen if we BE Christ to them. We don’t have to preach to them. I remember hearing one time that “God is a gentleman.” God will not force Himself on someone, and we shouldn’t either.

Pray. Be kind. Love them. And if you don’t think you can love them, then stay away from them. The only thing that will keep an abortion worker in the industry longer is a pro-lifer who condemns them.

What if you were the reason an abortion worker took a left instead of a right? You can be. I thank God every day of my life for the people who made me “change my route.”

Christian Businessman #fundie forum.myspace.com

I have a theory.

Is it possible that liberals are pro-choice just so they can eat our children? I wouldn't be surprised. I bet they just want to steal the aborted fetus and gobble it up!

I also think they support gay marriage just because it will lead to incest and beastiality. They want to marry their dogs while destroying the traditional family.

Footsoldier #fundie youtube.com

On the vegetable police:

Now, he's saying, "Oh no. I haven't got better. I've got to do the carnivore diet. I'm going to eat a diet comprised exclusively of the corpses of torture victims. That is my diet now. I'll wake up in the morning and I'm going to eat carcass. That's what I'm going to eat. I'm going to eat somebody's tortured corpse for every meal of the day. Every day, I'm going to eat nothing exclusively but corpse. Sod my ethics, sod all of that, I'm just going to eat meat from now on, because my health.", but this is the ridiculous thing. If you haven't seen this, GojiMan recently made a video saying "Bro, I know what's wrong with your intestinal issues. You've got this, this, this and you could probably cure it if you got this test arm to find out what you need to do and you can probably do this thing and that thing and then you'll probably be fine. So, your microbiome is basically trash, then you need to take a test to find out in which way it's trashed and then we can work together and come up with a solution and then you'll be doing great and you'll be absolutely doing really well", but instead of doing this, instead of taking that offer, he was "Oh no.". He just decided: "I don't care about any of that. I don't want to try. I don't want to put any effort in. I don't want to lift a finger or pay for any test. I'll spend loads of money on this, eh, new audio interface from audient I've bought and I've got this expensive camera here and I've got thios flute in Malaysia or wherever you've gone recently. Oh, don't worry about spending your money on that or spend any money on tests. Oh no. I'm just going to eat the carnivore diet. I don't care about the animals. I don't care about the environment. Oh, I don't care about any of that. I'm just going to do the carnivore diet because I don't give a shit. " That is what he's doing now. After GojiMan was like, "Not only I'm going to help you. I'm going to do it for free." and now he's made a video saying "Not only I'm going to help you and do it for free. Invest my time to help you for free. I'm also going to pay partially towards your test with all the money I've made from my YouTube channel. I'm going to give you that money to do the test. To see what's wrong with you and help you and walk you along every step of the way and we can get to the bottom of this together. I'm going to help you out and do all this. Not only all of that. He's going to do a GoFundMe to raise the additional money for Kasey. ". But no, he doesn't care about that, does he? No, he's too difficult. He doesn't want to do any of that. He just wants to do the carnivore diet. Why? Because he's just a bandwagon jumping cuck who doesn't actually care about the animals and he's never cared about the animals. He has only cared about his own health and just what's trendy and just doing the latest fad, gimmick bullshit, because he's hooked into any crap that people write on the internet because he has zero clue about nutrition and he's a spineless cuck.

The thing is that he was quite funny when he came out as a holocaust denying neo-nazi blame the jews all of the world's problems. That was the sort of funny, the sort of "Oh, what you're doing now" case. That was sort of funny, but now this. This just crossed the line. Just crossed the line. Lost all respect for Kasey now. Just what is he doing? He's just basically floating about, doesn't know what he's doing. The only reason why his channel is good and why anyone watches it is because he's somewhat entertaining. Now, he's not even vegan anymore. He's gone a 190 just eating murder victims. He's just eating corpses. He's demanding the death of innocent beings. I can't watch this guy anymore. He's just profoundly confused, lost all direction and just doesn't have a clue. But not only am I disappointed, it's so stupid, because he thinks he's going to heal his gut bacteria by eating the very food that inflames, eh, inflames intestines. Think of all those ulsters in his intestines. All of the damage, inflammation. How trashed his intestines are going to look compared to a normal person. He's got a disease. He's got gut disease. How trashed are his intestines going to look inside. Oh wait, in 48 hours, bam, it's all cured, so we got Shawn bacon, we've got milk jar saying: "Hey look. Meat heals, because in 48 hours he's gone from having gut issues to completely cured in 48 hours." Is that the case? Is that what's really happening here? No, it's not. What's happening is that he can't prabably eat oxalates or it's probably his gut flora because it's trashed. He can't ingest those things because it's getting a reaction to those oxalates or histamines or whateve GojiMan was talking about. He knows more about this than I do. Because not only that, he's actually been through this himself. So he's saying that when he eats vegetables and especially certain vegetables as high in oxalates, they're going to create a rotten reaction in his gut and he's going to get problems. You might get pain, indigestion, might run into the bathroom or something and that's because his microwaved bacteria, his gut flora, the microbiome is trashed currently and he needs to sort it out. But instead of sorting that out because he's getting reactions to certain copounds with implants which are obviously very healthy, but he just can't digest them properly because his microbiome is trashed. Instead of working on that so he can digest the healthiest foods on the planet which are plants. Instead of doing that he's just stopping eating plants entirely and he's going to eat the very food which causes inflammation of the intestines, causes cancer, causes Alzheimer's disease, causes diabetes. A whole myriad like Shaun Baker. He's got diabetes. His blood work shows he's got diabetes. So he's going to develop all these horrible things and then the second he starts eating normal food again he's going to be in a whole world of pain in a whole world of shit and if he doesn't jump off the bandwagon and of this meat carnival diet and start eating normal food again. Well, at some point, when is he going to get cancer? When is he going to get some sort of debilitating disease. It's only so long until he's going to get profoundly ill from eating nothing but flesh. Who eats nothing but flesh long term. That's not sustainable. Not for the environment and definitely not for his health. So long term, at one point or another, if he doesn't jump off the bandwagon at some point he's probably going to get cancer or some horrible debilitating disease. But if he decides at some points then decide in a few months or maybe even in a few weeks to start real food again and healthy food like plants then his gut is going to be even more inflamed and even worse than it is now. So he's just going down the rabbit hole and it's going to get worse and worse and worse until something really bad happens. So right now he might be symptomless, because he's not eating plants, the healthiest foods in the world, because he's bypassing that to mask symptoms or doesn't get the symptoms because he's not ingesting those foods, but the second he does ingest those foods again… What? You think his gut is going to heal by eating nothing but meat when its inflammatory and causes disease? At what planet is he on? He's just going down further down the rabbit hole and at some point he's going to get profoundly sick and it's just going to get worse and worse and worse from here.

Note:
* To know what the vegetable police actually wanted to do, check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3zVslk-xg
* GojiMan's answer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruGrSWz6to&t=253s
* The response by Vegetable Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAcZwj1cYdI

Johnnie Moore #fundie premierchristianity.com


Hardly a day goes by without a huge amount of negative media coverage surrounding President Trump. Yet many evangelicals are continuing to back the President. The informal spokesperson for those evangelicals who advise the Trump administration, Rev Johnnie Moore explains why

On my regular visits to Europe, I am often asked about the support of American evangelicals for President Donald Trump. I certainly understand the curiosity given Mr Trump's well-documented reputation prior to his presidency, his unfiltered stream-of-consciousness approach to social media, and his unconventional foreign policy - to put it mildly.

Yet, many American evangelicals are so close to the administration that the President and First Lady invited them to the equivalent of a state dinner last week “celebrating evangelical leadership.” At a certain point during the evening an open microphone prompted nearly two dozen of the dinner’s 100 guests to thank the administration.

Here are some of the reasons why evangelicals said they are grateful for the policies of the Trump administration, even when they are sometimes offended by the President's sensibilities:

1. He prioritises religious freedom
The Obama administration held court over the most significant threats to America's sacrosanct first amendment as have been witnessed in modern, American history. The most egregious example was when the administration attempted to require religious Catholics, including nuns, to provide contraception against their sincerely held religious beliefs.


When the Trump administration began their term, there were more than 50 active lawsuits against the Department of Justice for similar incidences. The Trump administration prioritised religious freedom in domestic and foreign policy by immediately auditing the entire federal government to identify incidences where administration policies violated the first amendment, and they corrected them, including by settling dozens of the active, aforementioned courts cases.

On the international front, the administration began reorienting humanitarian programs to assist persecuted religious minorities which had been overlooked in countries like Iraq by United Nations’ programs, and just a few months ago the State Department hosted a global symposium on international religious freedom that brought together senior government officials from more than 70 countries.

An entire book could be written on the way the Trump administration supports religious freedom, but one of the more recent examples is their use of severe sanctions against Turkey in response to their ongoing and unjust imprisonment of an American pastor, Andrew Brunson.

2. He protects the unborn
Without question, the Trump administration is more obviously pro-life than any previous administration since abortion became legal in the United States, and at a time when public opinion has moved rapidly against abortion, even among Democrats despite the party leaderships’ near-total unwillingness to accommodate pro-life Democrats.

The head of the Susan B. Anthony List, a noted pro-life organisation, didn't initially support candidate Trump but has since come to deem him "the most Pro-life president in American history" because of numerous policies he has introduced.

During the 2016 campaign, many evangelicals were deeply moved by hearing Trump's own story as to why he changed his opinion on abortion and one of the most profound moments of the election was in the final presidential debate when Secretary Clinton startlingly voiced her ongoing support for late-term abortion, despite the grotesque practice being banned by both the US Congress and the United States Supreme Court. Trump has fulfilled his promise to greatly strengthen pro-life policies.

3. He's addressing judicial over-reach
In many ways, the 2016 election was an election not made by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump but by the sudden death of the reliably conservative Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, putting the long conservative balance of the court in jeopardy.

President Trump's successful appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as Scalia's replacement represented the fulfillment of his single most important promise to the evangelicals who put him in office.

This week, his second nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, will begin his confirmation process and he is equally regarded as a trusted conservative, whose confirmation could guarantee a conservative Supreme Court for at least a generation. This is another fulfilled promise.

4. He's advancing criminal justice reform
While not an issue he campaigned in support of, President Trump has become a surprising advocate for criminal justice reform in the United States, a policy concern long advocated for by evangelicals whose passion for prisoners finds its roots in the New Testament itself.

The President’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, came into the White House with his own unrelenting passion for prison reform and has found in the evangelical community a natural and effective ally.

Because of it all, the United States’ Congress is on the verge of passing the first significant reform to America’s widely criticised prison system in over 30 years. The President’s evolution on the issue is largely considered the result of his evangelical advisors as has been the case with the President’s evolution on certain immigration issues, such as providing his support for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children.

5. He's addressing the opioid epidemic
The abuse of opioids in the United States is the nation's most significant drug problem, directly or indirectly affecting millions of Americans. The administration has forcefully taken on this addiction crisis, even when it meant taking substantial measures against large American companies despite opposition from the President's own party.

Evangelical pastors, who walk through addiction with members of their congregations, have been on the frontline of this developing crisis for years. The Trump administration has acted with the full force of the federal government, and it has already saved many lives.

6. He's strengthening the family
The administration's widely supported tax cuts, which were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, under the direction of the President, included the doubling of the standard tax credit given to parents for their children, and the administration is now well on its way to finally introducing to American life a meaningful program to support "paid family leave."

The United States is far behind Europe in these types of social programs, but the Trump administration appears to have found an approach that would be considered fiscally responsible by Republicans even while meeting a long-term policy priority of Democrats.

7. The economy is thriving
The administration's economic policies - from deregulation to workforce development - have resulted in nearly 3 million Americans being taken off of government assisted food programs, over 5 trillion dollars being added the United States' economy, and the lowest ever unemployment numbers among African Americans, Hispanic Americans, young people, and women.

The overall unemployment number is at its lowest since 1969. In 2017, Americans were also more generous than ever before donating at least $410 billion to charity, the highest number on record.

Taking our seat at the table
Those are some of the reasons why President Trump enjoys the highest approval rating any Republican president has ever received from the Republican Party.

Obviously, these highlights only represent part of an always-imperfect picture, but we mustn't deceive ourselves into thinking there aren't logical reasons to support this unconventional president.

Earlier this year, when liberal American Bishop Michael Curry decided to parlay the gift of newfound fame into a candlelit march on the White House just two days after he was entrusted with preaching at the Royal Wedding, I was asked by CNN what I thought of the opinions of Christians like Curry who so ardently oppose the Trump administration.

Here was my answer, "many of them are my friends, too, and we happen to mainly agree on the challenges facing our country and our world. We just sometimes disagree on the solutions."

One might disagree with the merits of the administration’s policies or the by-product of their approach, but one must acknowledge that many reasonable people support the administration’s policies on the basis of facts, not ideology.

As for evangelicals, I’ve personally seen the constructive work of many in our community precisely because we’ve taken our seat at the table, very often serving as the reasonable center building bridges between polarised extremes.

Rev. Johnnie Moore is an author, religious freedom advocate and the founder of The KAIROS Company, one of the world’s leading, boutique public relations consultancies. Moore is often referred to as the informal spokesperson for those evangelicals who advise the Trump administration.

godisprolife #fundie godisprolife.livejournal.com

Abortion is wrong. It is insane. It is advocated by people who lie and tell the American people the supposed “reasons” it’s needed while not applying those reasons to any other stage of life other than life in the womb. And they simply don’t care what the reason for abortion is, just as long as it is a right throughout all nine months of pregnancy. That is what the pro-choice movement stands for. Not just choice, but unrestricted choice to slaughter children in the womb right up until birth. I don’t care that they want free childcare—they aren’t noble.

Naomi Elizabeth Dooner #fundie naomielizabeth96.tumblr.com

(Single mother haunted by abortion hanged herself to Ed Sheeran song)

Pro-choice groups are the ones who trickd her into it, Convincing her that her baby wasn’t a ‘real person’, and that she was empowering herself. while pro-life groups were the ones presenting alternatives and offering post-abortion counseling which could’ve saved her

So, pro-choicers, this is what your movement has resulted in. Hope you’re proud of your work.

Jim Robinson #fundie freerepublic.com

This is Free Republic. Our mission here is to fight against the America-hating, God-hating, capitalism-hating, abortionist/homosexualist leftist revolutionaries and marxist/fascist totalitarians who are hellbent on destroying our constitution, our religious freedom, our economic freedom, our Judeo-Christian way of life and the America we love.

Pro-life, pro-family, conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews are not the enemy. All pro-life, pro-family pro-America believers in our one true Judeo-Christian God are our guests, friends and allies in this effort, so please quit attacking your allies!

Your attacks are not going to convert anyone.

Please save your ammunition for the enemy.

We’re on a mission from God. We’re putting the country back together.

If you do not agree with our mission and do not wish to cooperate with our efforts, then please log off and post somewhere else.

Thank you all very much!

God bless.

Archie Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

(Note: This post is from 2015, following the Charleston Church shooting)

Recent Events in Pro-Criminal Gun Control Efforts
Charleston, South Carolina: A single, young white man is presumed to kill nine people in local church prayer meeting. According to reports, the shooter is a white supremacist and wanted to start a ‘race war’. That’s the official narrative, but omits mention of the South Carolina law which prohibits a lawful concealed weapons citizen from carrying in a church or religious facility without express permission of the authority body of the organization.

In other words, the victims were forbidden by law having the means to defend themselves. This is another great win for the pro-criminal faction, pretending to be proponents of ‘common sense’. Forbid victims to be armed and violence ceases. Brilliant.

Of course this is a ‘hate crime’. A white man killed some black people. This ignores two factors at least: One is the murder victims were all (presumably) Christians; my Christian brothers and sisters. No mention has been made of that aspect, only that the victims were black. Two is the rioting, looting and vandalism in Ferguson, Baltimore and so on are ignored as ‘hate crimes’. The rather blatant hatred of white people is not important.

I heard an interview on National Public (Leftist) Radio, interviewing a gentleman introduced as a ranking member of the NAACP and a pastor – sorry, I don’t remember the details. In the interview, the individual spoke – ranted, perhaps – how the Federal Government (didn’t mention South Carolina) HAD TO take the responsibility for protecting the congregants in churches from violence. He made clear it is not the church’s (congregation or denomination) responsibility to defend themselves, but the Government’s responsibility. He was asked about the church accepting some responsibility and providing local defense – which is legal. He became incensed, raised his voice and declared words to the effect of ‘There will be no guns in our churches!’

Obviously, this gentleman is completely unaware of U. S. Supreme Court decisions finding that police departments (which includes Federal Law Enforcement agencies) are NOT liable for criminal action on the part of an individual against other individuals. In other words, there is NO Constitution ‘right’ to be safe against criminal danger, or any danger.

This gentleman also refuses the concept citizens need to look after themselves. He refuses the idea of personal responsibility for individuals. I find this most puzzling for a man who self-identifies as a Christian pastor. One of the elemental Christian tenets is all people are responsible for their own actions. Just as the murderer is responsible for his vile actions, the victims are responsible for their own protection and defense.

Further, this gentleman seems to be also unaware of the distinction between Christianity and Pacifism. Nothing in the Bible, either Old or New Testament encourages a passive attitude in life.

There are times when a Christian must submit to lawful authority. There are times when a Christian is physically helpless and cannot forcibly resist. However, Christians are not ordered, directed or expected to willingly be killed at the pleasure of someone else.

Don’t take my word for this. Look for yourself.

Luke 22:35vv records Jesus’ instructions and warnings to the disciples regarding their future, after He was ascended to Heaven. Jesus contrasts this with the prior occasion He dispatched the Twelve in Matthew 10: 1 – 15. Jesus advises His followers to take money, extra clothing as practical, a sword (weapon). His intent is they should be ready for any occasion. While on the earlier episode, He watched over them directly, in the future they would be physically exposed to violent opposition.

Also, look at the passages in Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, and Luke 19:45-46. Jesus physically expelled – the wording varies from ‘cast out’ to ‘drive out’ in various translations – the money changers and ‘sellers’ who were operating within the sacred boundaries of the Temple. Anyone who confuses this with Pacifism is deeply inept.

Revelation 19, starting with verse 11 describes the return of Jesus. It begins with a battle in which Jesus leads the Armies of Heaven. There are those who dismiss this passage as metaphorical, but it’s a pretty gruesome metaphor.

Teaching Pacifism as a tenet of Christianity is contrary to Bible teaching and therefore heretical.

The NAACP speaker is obviously more concerned with making political gains from this tragedy than with preventing more murders. In fact, he is working for more murders so he can use the resulting propaganda. Which is standard practice for the Left.

Then our current President weighs in on the matter. He opines this is a terrible thing – with which I agree, which is odd – and then launches off on a renewed ‘gun control’ plea. He ignores the fact the ‘gun control’ preventing firearms in churches ASSISTED the hideous event rather than prevented or even hindered what transpired.

This is leftist logic: If the millions of American citizens who now own firearms and cause no problems are stripped of their weapons and Constitutional rights, criminals will be powerless. If that is even remotely true, then the mass murder in the African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston, South Carolina NEVER HAPPENED. It couldn’t, as no firearms were allowed into the church.

Interesting is the President’s response to the riots, looting and vandalism in Baltimore in the recent past. The President didn’t push for more gun control then. In fact, the whole problem was and is being addressed by the Department of Justice (Attorney General’s Office) by investigating the Baltimore Police Department rather than the rioters.

It’s been a fine week for the totalitarian left. Lots of propaganda and horror and fear and sadness; just what the Leftists desire most in life. Fear allows control.

And this has been said before, but bears repeating. Anti-Gun is Pro-Criminal.

Matt Barber #fundie christianpost.com

I'm never going to win a popularity contest. It's not my goal to be liked. I'll probably never be a "Fox News contributor" or even broadly recognized as a dutifully compliant cog within the greater, GOP-heavy "conservative" political wheel. That's because I say things like this: There is no political fix to America's death spiral. We are drowning in a turgid river of postmodern relativism. This is a spiritual problem, not a political problem. This is a worldview matter, not a partisan matter.

Hitherto it has been "progressives" alone dumping buckets of moral relativist poison into the Potomac. But, in the last decade or so, self-styled "conservatives" have likewise begun drinking the subjectivist Kool-Aid.

Libertine libertarianism has infected the conservative movement like a cancer. Situational ethics, driven by emotional, anecdotal sob stories, are used to justify every moral wrong as an absolute right. "Get off the social issues!" they demand. "Gay marriage? No problem."

These gun-toting, free-market "conservatives" (of which I'm both) grace us with beauties like this: "I'm a 'pro-choice,' 'pro-gay' conservative," or, "Yeah, I'm shacking up with my girlfriend, big deal."

Relativism blurs the fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong, which leads to the abolition of absolute truth, which leads to pockets of moral anarchy, which leads to Barack Obama and Eric Holder deciding which laws to ignore and which laws to enforce, which leads to lawlessness, which leads to chaos.

Welcome to chaos.

Yes. The "social issues" matter.

The battle is not Republican vs. Democrat. Neither is it conservative vs. liberal. The battle precedes time itself. The battle is right vs. wrong. The battle is moral vs. immoral. The battle is truth vs. the lie.

The battle is between good and evil.

We've been playing political Ping-Pong for decades. We've been, as they say, rearranging the chairs on the Titanic while Democrats take the helm for a spell, and Republicans take the helm for a spell.

The reality is that both political parties have driven us into the iceberg, and then pranced off together, hand-in-hand, to play best-of-three racquetball at the congressional bathhouse.

While here at CPAC I met an interesting fellow by the name of Frank Mitchell. Frank founded the Memphis-based, classically conservative group: "A Shining City on a Hill." During our discussion, Frank said this: "There is no liberty without justice. Liberty without justice is only license."

Libertine libertarianism.

America cannot survive under a worldview that embraces unrestricted moral license. Such license destroys the individual. And such license destroys the nation.
"Liberty without justice is only license."

There is only one Arbiter of true justice. And justice is defined by Him, not by us. He sets the parameters. As both individuals, and as a nation, we are ill-advised to breach those parameters and well-served to maintain them.

America does not need a political fix. America needs a spiritual fix.

Boiler-Maker #fundie topix.net

If homosexuals are born that way, there must be some way of telling at the time of birth. I think that I am NOW Pro-Choice (Pro-Abortion) for gay fetuses at the time they are about to be born!

[And, in the next post...]

Do they get an erection when the doctor tries to reach in and pull them out, or when they see the doctor after they are born?(Male doctors, of course).

sunshine2777 #fundie rr-bb.com

(Originally Posted by Repentant Heart
That's fine, but I don't limit my morals to abortion and gay marriage. I'm not seeking your approval on my vote (no matter who I decide upon) this November. I don't need it.)


My 2 cents: First, dont forget the spiritual driving force behind this election and its outcome. Thats all I will say on that.

Second: RepententHeart: No, you dont need anyone's approval for your vote except Jesus's. And no, abortion and gay marriage dont totally define morality.... but abortion (murder) and gay marriage (adultery) look to be pretty important to God since they are in the top 10 of His commandments. I think you may want to look at the big picture and see the harm it does to a society, especially throughout history. Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength (paraphrased) and love your neighbor as yourself is supposed to sum it up. Yes, logic can help you see things all sorts of ways, but there is only one way that God sees it and we are supposed to see it the same way. Pro choice is pro murder, there is no other way to look at it that is correct in God's eyes. Just pray and be sure you can stand in front of the Lord and explain your vote to Him and you'll be ok.