One of the pro-choice gang’s standard regurgitations is that women never take abortion lightly and only have them for the most agonizing and legitimate of reasons.  With pro-choice people it is not always easy to distinguish when they are lying from when they are simply misinformed.  But such is not the case here.  They are lying and several of their fellow travelers have admitted as much.     

In an interview published in the March 9, 1989, edition of the communist publication, Revolutionary Worker, Marilyn Buckham, who was the director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic, was asked about the reasons women have abortions.  In her answer, she stated, “Women don’t do this lightly.  I’m sick and tired of hearing this.  Ninety-eight percent of women do do it lightly in here…they think of abortion like brushing their dime teeth and that’s OK with me.”

The reality is, if you go to any abortion clinic waiting room in America you will certainly find women who are there for what they perceive to be difficult circumstances.  But make no mistake, you will also find many who are having their second, third or fourth abortion as well as those who are there for reasons that could never be legitimately described as serious.            

But going beyond that, a recent episode at one of our nation’s “most prestigious” universities has raised the question of whether women ever have abortions after getting pregnant on purpose.  In early April, a pro-choice student at Yale, Aliza Shvarts, claims that she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly during the previous year and then self-aborted using various chemicals and herbs.  This was all done as part of a school art project.  It seems that she had video taped herself sitting in a bathtub doing these abortions on herself, and her plan was to project this video onto a cube that had been covered with blood she had saved from these abortions. 

I will concede that my knowledge of art is not very sophisticated.  My main experience in this field was in junior high school when I drew my own state inspection sticker for my Cushman scooter.  Evidently, it was not very good as a local police officer picked up on the forgery right away.  Needless to say, I was lucky to escape with only a ticket. 

But even though my credentials in this area are suspect, I still have to say that Aliza’s art sounds like it would make those Elvis on velvet things you see sold at abandoned gas stations seem like the Mona Lisa.  I’m also more than a little concerned that we will one day discover that this fiasco was paid for with tax dollars through a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

In any event, the university tried to extricate itself from this public relations nightmare by informing Shvarts that she would have to publicly state that her story was a hoax before they would allow it to be displayed.  They wanted her to say that the blood was not from abortions but from her menstrual flow.  Apparently, menstrual blood paintings are an approved form of artistic expression at Yale.  (Wouldn’t you love to read the minutes of the meeting where this conclusion was reached.)

Naturally, like any other proud but misunderstood artist, Shvarts refused to compromise and stuck to her story.  She did, however, enter something different in the art show so she would not fail the class.  I don’t know what form the replacement “art” took and I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to know.  Let’s just say that Aliza and I probably have different tastes.  

Surprisingly, the idea that women would abort intentional pregnancies is not a new one.  In the August 18, 1991, edition of the Austin American Statesman, rock singer Sinead O’Connor said she wrote the song My Special Child just two weeks after having an abortion.  She also said that, “It was a planned pregnancy, which I was very happy about.  I was completely in love with the father of the child ... But things didn’t work out between us, and we were both unhappy.  It was too much for him to be able to handle.  He was young and I was on tour, and I was feeling ill all the time because I was pregnant, and I was feeling so awful and I made the decision that it would be better for everybody if I had the abortion.’

About the same time, Oprah Winfrey had a show about women who get pregnant as a ploy to trap men into marriage.  One of the guests stated, with no hesitancy or sense of remorse, that when her attempt at this did not work as planned, she had an abortion. 

There were also revelations about the Olympic committee that oversees enforcement of drug policies discovering a trick some female athletes were using to circumvent the organization’s prohibition against blood doping.  These women were found to be intentionally getting pregnant prior to competition to increase the amount of oxygen in their bodies in order to heighten their performance.  After the competition was over, they would abort.  Olympic officials eventually determined that not only was this happening, it was not an uncommon practice among teams from certain countries.

So how common is it for women to abort an intended pregnancy?  Obviously, no one knows.  But we do know that it is common for women to abort intentional pregnancies when their baby turns out to be handicapped.  For example, in America today, over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are executed before birth and it would be illogical to think that those were all unplanned pregnancies.  On a personal level, through the Life Dynamics abortion malpractice campaign, I have spoken with many abortion-injured women over the years who told me that they had intentionally become pregnant but aborted when something changed in their lives.  One case I remember involved a woman who was forced to have a hysterectomy because of her injury.  She said that she had been trying to get pregnant for two years but aborted after being offered a promotion at work.

From a pro-life perspective, I think we need to keep all of this in context.  In a certain sense, the fact that a woman would have an abortion for frivolous reasons or to end a pregnancy she intentionally sought, is irrelevant.  Some justifications might make us more angry than others, but for the child that’s killed the reasons don’t matter.  The Down Syndrome child carried by a forty-year-old welfare recipient who got pregnant on purpose by a man whose name she doesn’t even remember, is no less valuable than any other child.      

In the final analysis, if the excuses for abortion don’t matter to the children being killed, they shouldn’t matter to us.  Our job is to protect every child in every circumstance.  And that must always be our focus.  

On April 3, 2008, state authorities carried-out an armed raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) facility in Eldorado, Texas.  They were acting on suspicions that some members of this religious sect were sexually exploiting children and others were concealing it. 

Before long, the State of Texas had taken custody of more than 400 children and isolated them from their parents.  Now, even the most ardent defenders of this action are conceding that the evidence being acted upon may turn out to be a little flimsy and the roundup overly broad.  Time will be the judge of that.  My suspicion is that unless mass indictments are eventually returned, the State of Texas is going to have a lot of explaining to do.    

Obviously, any decent person understands that society has an obligation to protect children against sexual predators.  They also have an obligation to act against adults who fail to protect children against sexual predators.  In fact, that is the most common justification given for separating the children in the Eldorado raid from their parents. 

If this all turns out to be legitimate, I say drop the parents in jail right along side the perps.  They deserve each other.  But I also want to know why everyone suspected of being involved in the cover-up of child sexual abuse are not the targets of such investigations.  

As you may recall, we conducted a three-month undercover investigation in which we recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across America – including Texas.  Our female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities.  On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state.  However, even after acknowledging this, 91% of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it.  Representatives of these organizations—often operating on tax dollars—routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

• lie about or conceal her age

• lie about or conceal the age of the man who impregnated her

• participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law

• use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility

• keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility

• be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it.  Any way you cut it, we caught these people red-handed.  The tapes from our investigation prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation are running a nationwide pedophile protection racket.  To read our complete report on this issue, take your blood pressure medicine and go to ChildPredators.com.

The reality is, we have an epidemic of child sexual abuse in this country.  The most reliable studies show that among girls 15 and younger who get pregnant in the United States, 60% to 80% are impregnated by adults.  We also know that 15 to 19 year old girls have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the country and that the majority were contracted from adult men.  The evidence goes on and on but it always leads to the same conclusion.  Underage girls are being sexually abused at a rate that is unprecedented in American history.         

I would also point out that facilities which offer pregnancy tests, STD treatments, birth control and abortions are, by far, the most common places these girls are going to show up.  So while the situation in Eldorado affects only a tiny fraction of the potential child sexual abuse victims in America, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities see them by the tens-of-thousands every year.  Yet we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting law enforcement to investigate the undeniable fact that these two organizations are openly flaunting every state’s mandatory reporting laws.  As amazing as it sounds, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, when pro-lifers bring this up to the authorities – they threaten the pro-lifers!  What we have discovered is that most law enforcement agencies in this country are simply afraid of the abortion lobby. 

The bottom line is, America’s epidemic of child sexual abuse is a national disgrace and the response of law enforcement to it is a scandal.  I challenge anyone to show me the difference between an adult who chooses to ignore the sexual abuse of children in the FLDS facility, and the law enforcement official who chooses not to enforce laws designed to protect children who end up at Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation.  Like I said, it’s a national scandal.

I have often observed that, when it comes to defending legalized abortion, the pro-choice mob has more tricks than a monkey on a hundred yards of grapevine.  Of course, this is probably a natural response given that the task they have chosen is to defend the indefensible. 

In any event, among their catalogue of rhetorical gymnastics, one of the most amazing is their contention that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother’s body.  They make this argument hoping that the public will conclude that, since society would never interfere with a woman’s decision to have her appendix out, it likewise has no place interfering with her decision to have an abortion.

The problem is, the underlying assumption supporting this argument is asinine even by the abortion lobby’s standards.  To assert that the unborn is part of the woman’s body is the same as saying that when a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 hearts, 2 brains, etc.   It also suggests that, if her child is a boy, for nine months of her life she has a penis.

Having said all that, for those of you who truly believe in this “baby as part of the woman” philosophy, I want to raise a serious issue.  I ask you to imagine a photo of conjoined (Siamese) twins and answer this simple question: Is that a picture of one person or two? 

Before you answer, understand that, from a biological standpoint, conjoined twins are far closer to being one person than is a mother and her unborn child.  Conjoined twins are always the same sex, always have the same DNA, are always the same blood type, always share at least one external body structure and often share several internal organs.  And as long as they are joined, if one dies they both die. 

But none of that is true about a mom and her unborn baby.  They are the same sex only about half the time, often don’t have the same blood type, never have the same DNA and do not share any external body parts or internal organs.  Moreover, it is not only possible for one to survive when the other one dies, it is common.

The point is, while it would be biologically incorrect to claim that conjoined twins are not two distinct individuals, even that argument would be more grounded in scientific reality than the claim that a mother and her unborn child are not two distinct individuals.  

The subject of conjoined twins also creates another analogy to the pro-life issue.  It is now common for doctors to perform surgery to separate conjoined twins.  In many of these cases, it is understood that the chances for both surviving is low.  However, no ethical surgeon would agree to intentionally kill one of the twins to increase the chances that the other one would survive.  In every case, the intent is to save both lives and every effort will be made to achieve that result.  It may be true that, prior to the surgery, it is accepted – even anticipated – that only one will survive.  But under no conditions would separation surgery be performed with that as its intended outcome. 

This is the principle that must be applied when the issue is whether abortion is acceptable in those extraordinarily rare instances in which pregnancy poses an immediate threat to the physical life of the mother.  From an ethical standpoint, we cannot say that it is ever acceptable to intentionally kill the baby to save the mother.  Instead, her physician should be required to do everything possible to save both mother and child.  If, as an unintended consequence of that effort, one or both fail to survive, that would be considered an unavoidable – thus permissible – outcome.  However, it is as morally indefensible to say that we will intentionally kill the baby to save the mother as it would be to say that we will intentionally kill the mother to save the baby. 

In the final analysis, the pure “no-exceptions” pro-life position is exactly the same as saying that operating on conjoined twins is never acceptable if the intent is to kill one of them.  In both cases, there are two distinct individuals involved and we must never cross the moral line where we argue that one innocent human being’s life can be snuffed-out for the benefit of another.

Oops, I forgot.  We already did that.  It’s called Roe vs. Wade. 

The Godless Left continues its relentless attacks on abstinence-based sex-ed programs, calling them unrealistic since, “teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do.”

To understand the fallacy in this fatalistic claim, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.  The question is, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent?  Should they tell her that she will have to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls? 

Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter.  They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.  That exposes the “kids-are-going-to-have-sex-no-matter-what-we-do” argument as a lie.  After all, if it is realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is equally realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. 

Today, people are starting to pick up on the fact that, after public schools began introducing contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, America’s relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.  They are also noticing that children are now having sex at much younger ages.  Whereas forty years ago it would have been front-page news for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant, today it is not even unusual.

This has caught many liberal social engineers between a rock and a hard place.   They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck.  In this environment, the pill-pushers have decided to advocate what they call “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.”  Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs.  Some even grudgingly, though insincerely, agree that abstinence should be primary. 

This is a scam.  These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message.  It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers,  “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around.  The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

A good analogy can be drawn between contraception-based sex-ed and motorcycle helmets.  As someone who has been riding, building and/or racing motorcycles for 47 of my 59 years, I can assure you that someone is better off wearing a helmet than not wearing one.  However, helmets do not make riding motorcycles safe and I have never heard one helmet or motorcycle manufacturer contend otherwise.

Let’s say, however, that we decided to let our school systems make motorcycle helmets available to every teenager in the country for free and without their parents’ knowledge.  Let’s also say that these kids were “educated” that wearing helmets made them seem mature and responsible because it meant that they were practicing “safe motorcycle.” 

In that environment, it would be pure idiocy to think that the number of children willing to ride motorcycles is not going to dramatically increase or that the number killed on motorcycles is not going to skyrocket.

So, if the question is whether helmets offer some degree of protection to people who ride motorcycles, the answer is yes.  If the question is whether they should be pushed to children as part of a “motorcycle abstinence” or “safe motorcycle” message, the answer is absolutely not.  In fact, it would be criminal to do so.  But that is precisely how the condom/contraception message has been packaged to address teen sexuality, and the results have been as horrifying as they were predictable.

Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  To some degree, that is a valid argument.  However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats.  For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats.  Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat.  In some crashes, children who might have a better chance for survival if they were thrown from the cars in which they were riding, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks.  But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.”  Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take.  In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they made decisions that they believed would save the most lives possible.  

That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education.  No reasonable person could believe that it will save every child or that some children might not actually be harmed by it.  Although the pill-pushers’ argument that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie, we cannot deny that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.  But we have to also accept the harsh reality that there is never going to be a perfect or painless solution to the massive destruction caused by Planned Parenthood’s brand of sex education.  Given that, we must look for the educational approach that will save the most children possible, and that is abstinence-only.  It is the only solution that is 100% effective every time it is used.   

One thing is for certain.  It is the very definition of stupidity and insanity to believe that contraception-based sex education is a solution to the social problems that were created by contraception-based sex education.

Have you ever noticed that every time the Godless Left promotes any of the moral depravities that they hold so dear, a predictable pattern develops. 

Whatever their “vice du jour” might be, their initial sales pitch will be that it is morally acceptable.  Of course, this inevitably fails because whatever they are pushing is generally so ghastly that it is impossible to sell it on its own merits.  So their fall-back strategy is to play the old “you can’t legislate morality” card.  They will even wrap it around some absurd interpretation of American history in which our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and treasure so we could all live in a nation where laws are made free of any moral considerations.  Then, for good measure, they will toss in something about the constitutional separation of church and state, despite the fact that such a concept is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. 

Sadly, this scam often works.  America is in such a state of moral and intellectual decay that otherwise decent intelligent people actually suck-up this loopy philosophy.  It is part of the culture of “situational ethics” in which genuine ethics are seen as abnormal and perhaps even unpatriotic.  In our brave new world of unfettered tolerance and moral-relativism, it is not enough to believe that some things are not black and white but shades of gray; you must now believe that everything is a shade of gray and that black and white do not exist.  This philosophy thrives because the American people have become so open-minded that their brains fell out.     

Here are the facts:  No governmental body can pass laws that will make an immoral person moral.  So they don’t try.  Legislation is not about regulating beliefs, it’s about controlling behavior.  When a legislature passes laws against racial discrimination, it does not concern itself with the personal moral beliefs of people who sincerely think racial discrimination is okay.  The legislature has determined that discrimination is not morally acceptable and, therefore, it will not be legally permitted regardless of what some racist might think.  In other words, society imposes its belief system on someone who has a completely different belief system.  Any way you look at it, that is legislating morality.   

So don’t let the Godless Left fool you.  The law is nothing more or less than society’s collective moral values, and it legislates that morality by regulating behavior.  At the moment we abandon that principal, our legislative bodies will be left with no legitimate foundation upon which any law can be justified.  If that happens, our country will be doomed to collapse into a state of bedlam and anarchy.

How would you like to ask the pro-choice mob a question that is guaranteed to have them jumping around like worms on a hot rock?  Well, read on.  

Three facts are important to know.  First, though there are certainly members of the gay community who are pro-life, go to any large public event put on by the pro-choice gang, or read any edition of the NOW Times or MS Magazine, and you will see that the “mainstream” homosexual lobby and the “mainstream” abortion lobby are joined at the hip.

Second, the current “enlightened” and “politically correct” view is that homosexuality is not a choice but a function of genetics.  While I am not convinced this is true, if it is then it is only a matter of time before scientists identify the genetic marker for homosexuality.
 
Third, the abortion lobby has made it clear that they will never back away from their fundamental assertion that the reasons for abortion are no ones business except the women who have them. 

In light of these three facts, let’s ask our enemies one simple and completely appropriate question:  Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay? 

When you ask that question, their only options are to either abandon their basic position or risk alienating one of their most loyal support groups.  We should also keep in mind that these people have failed this sort of test before.  You may recall that standing-up for the disabled was, at one point, sold as an integral part of the liberal agenda.  But the first time that effort conflicted with the abortion license, the Godless Left did not hesitate for one moment to throw the disabled under the bus. 

The result is that, for example, in America today over 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.  In fact, legalized abortion has so decayed American society that abortion is now the default position for women carrying a child with even the most insignificant abnormalities.  In our brave new world, if a new mom delivers a handicapped baby she better be prepared to routinely answer the question, “Didn’t your doctor tell you about this while you were still pregnant?” 

That sorry question and all it implies is part of the “better-dead-than-disabled” mentality that now infects our country.  And make no mistake about it, that mindset is the sole responsibility of the pro-choice mob and it has helped them sell lots of abortions.  To one degree or another, it has also created a rift between them and those who truly care about the disabled.

Whatever the consequences, it is pretty clear that the Choice Mafia is not going to turn off this path.  They have apparently decided that they cannot afford to say that any woman should be denied her “right to choose” for any reason.  If a “homosexual gene” is ever identified, the bloodbath they are currently prosecuting against Down syndrome and other “imperfect” children will be expanded to include those who might turn out to be gay.  In fact, we may discover that parents are actually more likely to have a potentially gay child killed than one with Down syndrome. 

If the homosexual lobby has not yet thought about this issue, it’s time they did.  We need to show them that when the American holocaust turns its attention in their direction, it will be their pro-choice buddies who not only defend it but carry it out.     

We should also introduce the reality that this phenomenon is not going to be limited to homosexuality.  Some scientists are now speculating that genetics may influence people to embrace certain political ideologies.  So imagine that someday a conservative, but otherwise pro-choice, organization launches a campaign to encourage – not force or require but simply encourage – pregnant women to kill any fetus they are carrying who is identified as having a politically liberal genetic marker.  Would these pro-choice death-merchants have any problem with that? 

If you analyze what genetic scientists are now suggesting, the possibilities for this line of dialog are endless.  If it is true that virtually every person born into the world is a potential member of a group that could be genetically identified, that means they could be targeted for extinction through abortion. 

The bizarre part of this is that, if we press this issue to its logical conclusion, the abortion lobby may be forced to adopt a completely different “abortion-justification” argument.  Instead of saying that women should be allowed to abort for any reason whatsoever, they may have to say that the only women who should be allowed to abort are those who are doing so for no reason whatsoever.

America’s Godless Left continually derides Christianity by talking about all the harm its followers have done over the centuries.  Whenever the subject comes up, we are regaled with stories about the Crusades, the war in Ireland, the pilgrims, and a cornucopia of other Christian crimes that are meant to shame us into contrite silence. 

The fact that most of what these people say is at best inaccurate and at worst fabrication, is of no consequence.  Most of them are not bright enough to know that what they are saying is nonsense and the ones that do know don’t care.  As card-carrying members of the Godless Left, they have the comfort of knowing that their lies will never be exposed by their stooges and fellow travelers in the media.  So they can even talk about atrocities carried out by Muslims and cite them as examples of what people do “in the name of God.”  In this convoluted world, every “believer” is the same regardless of what they believe so it is only natural that Christians would be held accountable for what Muslims do.  The fact that much of the violence committed by Muslims over the centuries was actually committed against Christians is inconvenient and, therefore, ignored.  After all, they will never allow truth to compromise their political agenda.        

When they mention recent Christianity-induced violence, the name that most often pops into the conversation is that of Adolf Hitler.  The Left loves to hold him up and talk about how a Catholic envisioned and then carried out the Nazi holocaust.  The major flaw in that argument is that Hitler was not a Catholic.  He was simply born to parents who were Catholic.  Read any legitimate biography about him and you will see that he was virtually devoid of any sort of spirituality and that the closest thing to religion in his life was a disturbing fascination with occultism.  The bitter irony is, if Hitler had indeed been a Catholic it is highly unlikely that World War II would have ever occurred.  

Let’s cut to the chase here.  Uncovering the real motivation behind this Christian-bashing phenomenon begins by understanding that the world just went through the most violent time in its history.  In World War II alone, while Hitler’s thugs were terrorizing western Europe, Joe Stalin and his buddy Lenin were carrying out a genocide – often against their own countrymen – that made Uncle Adolf look like a bumbling amateur.  Meanwhile, the Japanese had jumped into bed with Hitler and Stalin and were piling up Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Filipino, and Indochinese corpses by the millions.  Then came despots like, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-chek, Tito, Kim Il-sung, and others who carried on this tradition of using mass executions as a political tool.

In the end, the best estimates are that government sanctioned genocide during the 20th century stole the lives of about 175 million people.  What the Godless Left does not want the public to think about is the fact that almost all the perpetrators of these atrocities were self-admitted atheists and/or non-Christians.  In other words, the overwhelming majority of the butchery that occurred during the most violent century in world history, was done by people with the same world view and belief system as the American Left.  Their Christian-bashing campaign is simply a scheme to divert attention away from that uncomfortable reality.  In short, they are the embodiment of the “guilty dog barks first” philosophy and, unfortunately, to a large measure it has worked.     

The unvarnished truth is that the Godless Left has always embraced genocide as a means to an end.  One such atrocity is going on right here in the United States as over 3000 helpless human beings are being executed by abortion every single day. 

Of course, there are those who will contend that this holocaust is not associated with atheism since many of the people who call themselves pro-choice, and many of the people actually having abortions, claim to be Christians.  That ignores the fact that just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they are one.  In reality, when someone says they are both pro-choice and Christian they are either heretics, outright frauds, or painfully ignorant about what it means to be a Christian. 

Two non-negotiable foundations of Christian doctrine are that (1) God is the author of life, and (2) He is incapable of making mistakes.  The only logical conclusion one can draw from those beliefs is that when life exists in the womb, it is God’s will that it be there.  On the other hand, support for legal abortion always denies at least one, and generally both, of those two fundamental concepts.  By definition, that makes the “pro-choice” position incompatible with Christianity.

When someone claims to be both pro-choice and Christian, he or she is basically asserting three principles.  The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so.  The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb.  Finally, they are saying that it is possible to reject the innocent new lives that God creates without rejecting God Himself.  From a Christian perspective, all three of these positions are absurd.
 
The bottom line is, there can be no such thing as a “pro-choice Christian” when abortion is the choice.  A Christian cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.

In the final analysis, those who participate in or defend the abortion holocaust are as godless as those who have participated in or defended most of the world’s other holocausts.  To be certain, Christians have a lot to answer for and answer for it they will.  But to suggest that they are even in the same league with these people is preposterous.

I recently heard an animal rights activist who called herself pro-choice on abortion say that we pro-lifers are hypocritical because we don’t show the same level of concern for dogs and cats that we do for the unborn child.  Of course, like almost every other pro-choice argument, this one is firmly rooted in mindless stupidity. 

When someone suggests that the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are morally equivalent, what they are saying is that if they ran over someone’s five-year-old child with their car it would be no bigger deal than if they had run over a squirrel.  By this standard, if a family doctor told a husband and wife that their child has an incurable and fatal disease, that would be no greater tragedy than if their vet told them their pet hamster was dying.

Clearly, this whole line of “reasoning” is nonsense. 

The reality is, having known thousands of pro-lifers, I can state with no fear of being inaccurate that the overwhelming majority do indeed care about animals.  In my own case, our family includes a cat, two dogs, two rabbits, and five fish.  We demonstrate our affection for them in many ways, not the least of which is in vet bills that often appear higher than the debt of some third-world counties.

I also feel confident that most pro-lifers probably share my opinion that people who abuse or neglect animals are cowards who deserve to spend a significant amount of their lives sitting in small, cold, dimly-lit prison cells. 

However, anyone who suggests that the lives of animals are morally equivalent to those of human beings is in need of psychiatric help.  But if these animal rights wackos honestly believe that they are, I have a legitimate question for them. 

If animals have rights in the sense that humans have rights, how do we protect those rights?  I’m not talking about protecting animals from having their rights violated by humans.  That’s relatively easy.  What I’m asking is how we protect animals from having their rights violated by other animals.  After all, most of the abuse done to animals is not committed by people but by other animals.  Moreover, it is illogical to say that we will only protect the rights of animals when those rights are being violated by humans. 

So how do we fix the long-standing problem of animal-on-animal abuse?  Should we assign police officers to patrol the nation’s fields and forests?  And what do we do when the authorities catch some furry or feathered miscreant?  For example, if a hawk has been apprehended for swooping down and eating a chipmunk, does the arresting officer have to read the hawk his Miranda rights?  And how do we make sure that the hawk understands his rights if the cop isn’t fluent in hawk?  Also, if the hawk can’t afford an attorney, do we appoint one to represent him at trial? 

Another question is whether we should create an animal DNA database so that when one mouse steals another mouse’s cheese we can identify and prosecute the right mouse.  After all, as an enlightened and civilized people, surely we would not want to incarcerate an innocent mouse.

As we contemplate these weighty matters, let’s not forget that over 3000 innocent human beings will be sent to the gallows today with no trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution.  And this holocaust will be repeated tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so forth.  Meanwhile, not one animal rights organization takes a position against it. 

Now that’s hypocrisy.

Since day one, our enemies have made it clear that they even they know abortion cannot be defended on its own merits.  So their strategy has been deflect attention onto some other subject. 

A perfect example of this is their claim that the real issue isn’t abortion, but whether we trust women to be their own moral agents.  By using the term “moral agents” to describe women who submit to abortion, they hope to create the illusion that women who hire serial killers to slaughter their children do so out of some kind of moral conviction.  The pro-choice crowd realizes that if they can sell that nonsense, the public might ignore what abortion really is.  

To understand how asinine this “trust women” rhetoric is, imagine some politician saying he  opposes laws against rape because he “trusts men to be their own moral agents.” 

Or imagine that a woman is scheduled to have an abortion tomorrow, but gives birth in her home today.  If the baby survives, should she be allowed to kill it?  After all, the child was going to be killed the next day anyway.  Why should she lose her “right to choose” because of a premature delivery that was beyond her control?  Is she only allowed to pay someone else to kill her baby, but not allowed to kill it herself?  Are we saying that we only trust women to make good moral decisions while they’re pregnant? 

And if we are supposed to just blindly trust women, why not trust them across the board?  Let’s allow each woman to make her own moral choice about whether to stop at red lights, embezzle money from her employer, write bad checks, use cocaine, or become a prostitute.  Let’s also exempt all female business owners from discrimination laws which make it illegal for companies to refuse employment or service to minorities.  In fact, every law prevents women from choosing to engage in some activity and says that women can’t be trusted to make that particular decision.  So why isn’t the choice mafia screaming that women should be exempted from all laws?  I mean, do they trust women or don’t they?

The fact is, this whole “trust women” argument is a rhetorical con-game.  Every rational person knows that the only reason for the law to even exist is because people – men and women – can’t be trusted to always do what’s right.  And we pass laws to keep them from inflicting their immoral decisions on others.

Generally, those who defend legalized abortion couch their rhetoric in terms of rights.  Occasionally, however, one will actually try to argue that butchering our offspring can be defended on moral terms.  A few years back, one even wrote that having an abortion should be looked upon as a sacrament that makes the unborn victim holy.  Her “reasoning” was that the baby becomes more like Jesus since both shed their blood to make other people’s lives better. 

Today, the pro-choice crowd is correctly recognizing that the American people are increasingly uncomfortable about abortion.  If for no other reason, modern ultrasound images of the unborn prove that the pro-life position on fetal humanity is not an unfounded theory but observable fact.

So now comes an article by Sarah Zaman.  In a bid to appear less radical than her neo-feminist foremothers, she says that the pro-choice position should evolve from one that sees the unborn as “ordinary tissue to be casually thrown aside” into one which “at least recognizes that abortions end the potential for human life.” 

With that, Zaman establishes a new standard for irrational pro-choice rhetoric.  Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when male and female human beings reproduce they produce something that is only potential human life.  In the first place, if the word “potential” is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is demonstrably untrue.  Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman.  Clearly, whatever else the fetus is, no one can logically deny that it is, at least, alive. 

Maybe her use of “potential” is referring to the word “human.”  However, for that to be accurate, the fetus would have to have the “potential” of becoming either a human being or some other life form—perhaps a parrot or a spider.  Her problem is that there is no record of a human female ever having given birth to anything other than another human being.  So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential schoolteacher, it is laughable to say that it is a potential human being.  Biologically, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.

Zaman went on to regurgitate the Clintonian maxim that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”  But if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, and it is not the killing of a child, why would anyone want it to be rare?  In fact, if it is such a positive thing for women, we should be clamoring for more abortions not fewer.  And if it is the “fundamental constitutional right” that the abortion lobby claims, why shouldn’t it be celebrated?  After all, we don’t hear anyone saying that free speech or freedom of religion should be rare.  Why apply this illogical standard to abortion?

There are several other incoherent arguments in Zaman’s article, but the bottom line is that her version of “pro-choice” is even more intellectually dishonest than the one she wants to replace.  The pro-choice view has always been that the unborn have no value and, therefore, it’s acceptable to treat them as if they have no value.  So while their actions are indeed evil, they are at least consistent with their beliefs. 

On the other hand, Zaman says the unborn do have value while at the same time contending that the law should continue to allow them to be slaughtered by the millions.  Either she is actually more evil than her older colleagues (if such a thing is possible), or she has not yet discovered something they figured out long ago: the Abortion Holocaust cannot be defended using morality or reason and those who try to do so appear as fools.

The December 8, 2003, edition of U.S. News & World Report contains an article called, The New Evangelicals in which the modern megachurch is portrayed as little more than a large building in which people congregate to have their ears tickled by a slick and well-paid preacher/entertainer. 

I am always skeptical when the secular media starts analyzing Christianity or the church, but the message of this article is, unfortunately, impossible to deny.  Today, Americans want a low-maintenance no-demand Christianity that pushes absolution without the need for confession and revival without the need for repentance.  They don’t want to hear about sin or repentance or the need to live by some moral code handed down thousands of years ago; they want to be dazzled.  Most of all, they want a church that makes them feel good about the lifestyle they are involved in regardless of what that lifestyle might be.

That is the market these megachurch preachers have tapped into.  It’s called the “Seeker Movement” and it is designed to appeal to aging baby-boomers who are looking for a philosophy that is more John Lennon than John the Baptist. 

In the USNWR article, megachurch preacher Lon Solomon claimed that churches like his are “offering people a different and better way to live than secular America offers.”  However, their touchy-feely-I’m-okay-you’re-okay theology and entertainment-based delivery system demonstrates that there is actually little if any difference between the two.  In fact, his own words prove that modern secular society now has far more influence on the church than the church has on society.

Among the many problems with this Seeker Movement theology is that it will never pull America out of its current moral tailspin.  For example, in this article Solomon referred to issues like abortion as just “minor concerns” to this wave of New Evangelicals.  It was clear that people like Solomon see no contradiction in getting all jacked-up about someone being born again, while being functionally indifferent to those who don’t get to be born even once. 

The result is, with the church’s averted gaze and silent approval, today more people will be killed in the womb than on every battlefield in the world.  Of course, that’s just a minor concern for those who are already born.