The foundation of the pro-life position is that, from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists and has the same right to life as a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old.
Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems plaguing the pro-life movement today is that so many of our people don't appear to actually believe that. For me, this was reinforced at a speech I gave recently. In the “meet and greet” session beforehand, someone came up to me and mentioned that he was a long-time pro-lifer but was working for one of the pro-choice candidates in the presidential race. His rationale was that there are "other issues" we also need to be concerned about, issues like the economy and the war on terrorism. He lamented that this had created a nasty and growing rift between himself and some of his fellow pro-lifers, not the least of which was his own wife. His argument was that he was as pro-life as any of them and was being unfairly attacked despite having worked for years in the movement.
I asked him if he truly understood what being pro-life means. He acknowledged that it is the belief that the unborn has the same right to life as the born. So I asked him to imagine that, instead of the unborn, it was his life, or the lives of people he knew, or the lives of anonymous 5-year-olds that his candidate was saying it should be legal to snuff out. If that were the case, would he still be saying that there are "other issues" we need to consider or does that standard only apply to the unborn?
Recognizing the trap he had set for himself, he never responded. After making it clear that his mind had not changed, he angrily walked away. Somehow, this man had convinced himself that helping to put a politician in office that would slaughter unborn children by the millions did not conflict with his claim to be pro-life.
I have often observed that the human brain is the only organism on earth that has the ability to deceive itself. This guy is a living testament to that phenomenon. The sad part is, I am seeing more and more evidence that he is not alone. The problem seems to be that a significant number of the people in this country who claim to be pro-life are only pro-life in the theoretical sense. As a practical matter, when economic agendas and self-interests collide with their pro-life principle, it's the pro-life principle they will abandon.
Each of us knows that there have always been internal disagreements within the pro-life movement and there always will be. It is human nature. Some of these conflicts have been petty and others have centered around matters of legitimate substance. In either case, however, I think we would all like to see even those pro-lifers with whom we have differences as people of integrity and character. But when someone says they are pro-life but could support a baby-killer for political office that person can no longer be viewed in that light. What they have said is that, when push comes to shove, for the right 30 pieces of silver they will drop the unborn in the grease.
By definition, that makes them the same as the people they claim to oppose. The abortion lobby is willing to butcher the unborn for personal, political and financial reasons, and the faux-lifers are willing to look the other way for personal, political and financial reasons. It is a distinction without a difference.
The bottom line is, for those of us who are committed to the pro-life cause, the fate of the unborn will never be merely “an” issue. It is always “the” issue. For that reason, a candidate's position on abortion is all we need to know and all that matters. If a politician is wrong on that, he or she cannot be right enough on anything else to make up for it. It also makes no difference whether or not the office being sought has any direct impact on abortion. Those people who contend that it should be legal to execute helpless children are not morally qualified to serve in any public office. And those who help put them there have no right to call themselves pro-life.
The foundation of the pro-life position is that, from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists and has the same right to life as a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old.
Whenever the Communists targeted a country for takeover, they would always recruit “fellow travelers” from inside the country to help pave the way. Often they would be members of the existing government, or the press, or academia, but it was possible for them to come from any disaffected or dissatisfied segment of the society.
The interesting thing is, once the Communists came to power, they would inevitably have these people executed or, at least, thrown in prison. Since they had already proven that they were willing to overthrow an established government, they were considered a threat to the new regime. Besides, they had already served their purpose.
Although this pattern was repeated over and over, it seemed that there was never a shortage of new fellow travelers willing to help out when the Reds came a calling. Evidently, these new believers convinced themselves that this phenomenon would not repeat itself in their case. This sort of thinking earned them the title, “useful idiots.”
Now, it seems that the GOP has decided that this strategy might be right for the 2008 presidential campaign. In the past, they have relied on the Doctrine of Lesser Evils to entice pro-lifers to vote for those Republicans who were, to say the least, mushy on abortion. The sales pitch went something like, “Our guy might not be exactly what you want, but he is better than the complete moral degenerate put up by the Democrats.”
The Republican Party hierarchy seemed willing to stay with this strategy for the 2008 campaign as long as their hand-picked boy, Rudy Giuliani, was perceived as a lock for the nomination. But two things happened they didn’t count on. First, even though the Democrats are poised to nominate someone who could probably make Charles Manson seem like the lesser of two evils, a significant part of the Republican base does not see the Giuliani as any better. The second complicating factor is that, to the chagrin of the GOP’s power structure, the polls are showing that Mike Huckabee has turned into a legitimate threat.
To counter these two problems, it seems that the GOP has decided to field its own team of useful idiots. In just the last few days, several Republicans who claim to be pro-life have scurried from under the baseboards to urge the GOP’s Christian and pro-life base to rally behind the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Second Amendment, thrice-married, Rudy Giuliani. Not only that, but they are doing this in the primary when several pro-life / pro-family candidates are still in the race.
The most high-profile turncoats so far are Christian Coalition founder, Pat Robertson, and Texas governor, Rick Perry, both of whom have lavished praise on their new best-buddy, Rudy. Making this situation even more preposterous is the excuse they are using to justify their treachery. Their claim is that Giuliani has assured them that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court.
The problem is, Giuliani has repeatedly stated that he supports Roe v. Wade. Obviously, the only way a self-described “strict constructionist” could take that position is for him to believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. But somehow, we are expected to conclude that such a person is going to help return legal protection to the unborn. Apparently, the GOP Illuminati is designing their 2008 strategy around the theory that those of us in the great unwashed masses are really stupid.
When the Rick Perry and Pat Robertson types are placed in a position where they cannot logically reconcile their pro-life claims with their gushing support for a pro-abort, they inevitably counter that there are other issues besides abortion. They talk about economics, border security and other issues, but the most common justification they give is that Giuliani would be better than Clinton in the war on terrorism. While that may or may not be true, let’s assume that it is. When someone says that they will support a pro-abort for that reason, what they are really saying is, “I’m willing to let unborn babies be dropped in the grease by the millions if that’s what it takes to save my own skin.”
The point is, it is obscene for someone to claim to be pro-life while saying that a candidate’s position on abortion is just “one of the many issues we have to look at.” For the true pro-lifer, if a candidate is wrong about the wholesale slaughter of children, they cannot be right enough on any other issue to make up for it. And when people like Rick Perry and Pat Robertson actually endorse them, it only proves that either they were frauds all along or that they never understood the pro-life principle to begin with.
So let’s cut to the chase here. It has always been known that there are a lot of people within the pro-life movement who are more Republican than pro-life. What’s happening right now is that the GOP’s useful idiot campaign is smoking them out. Fortunately for them, when the campaign is over they will not be executed or put in prison. Instead, they will be exiled into irrelevance until they become useful again. My suspicion is that this process will take four years.
In the mean time, the unanswered question is whether we will follow the Robertsons and Perrys into the abyss of abandoned principles and auctioned souls. In short, will we let them play us the way Giuliani and the Republican Party is playing them?
If we do, I guess we are the real idiots.
Now that the political season is back at our throats, we are again hearing the abortion lobby trot out its usual collection of distortions, half-truths and outright lies. Of course, one of their favorites is the old line that since women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, we have to protect them against dangerous back-alley abortions.
This assumes that the legal abortions women are getting right now are safe, but we'll let that fairy tail slide for the moment. We'll also ignore the fact that, 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 was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice. That means the obvious solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice mob not to do them. But like I said, we'll ignore that for now.
What I'm wondering about is this. If the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why aren't the people who make that argument also calling for the repeal of laws against rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist so she can't identify him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away the rapists' motivation for killing them.
Legalization could also result in the establishment of rape clinics where rapists could take their victims instead of dragging them into dangerous back-allies. These facilities could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could also issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo monthly testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment. Well, those dynamics also apply to rape. We know that keeping rape illegal has not stopped women from being raped, so why not try to create a more “enlightened” nation where rape is safe, legal and rare?
And by the way, as ridiculous as this suggestion is, if our goal is saving women's lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.
We have seen several examples lately that America’s largest abortion profiteer, Planned Parenthood, is opening new facilities across the country and using deception and dishonesty to do so. In one high-profile example, they recently completed construction on a new 22,000-square-foot state-of-the-art death camp in Aurora, Illinois, that they readily admit was built with it’s true purpose and real owner’s identity intentionally concealed from the public.
While it is understandable that the pro-life movement would be outraged at the naked corruption Planned Parenthood is using in its expansion plans, we must not allow that outrage to blind us to the motivation behind this expansion. The truth is that, in this case, our enemy’s motives are far more important than their methods.
It is well known that an ongoing problem for the abortion lobby is their rapidly shrinking number of facilities. From the peak years of the late 1980s, approximately two-thirds of the abortion clinics in America have closed permanently, primarily because the abortion industry has been unable to hire enough employees to keep them open.
In the 1980s, most of Planned Parenthood’s death camps had all the abortionists they needed including reserves in case one of the “regulars” went on vacation. Today, the reserves are long gone and most facilities are forced to make do with just one contract killer on the payroll. As for the support staff, it’s pretty much the same story.
Of course, the abortion lobby says their recruiting problems are a result of “pro-life violence” when, in fact, the amount of violence directed at the abortion industry over the years has been incredibly low. When the U.S. Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t even make it into the final reports.
So before we go further, let’s put this “pro-life violence” myth to rest once and for all. Even if you focus on the time period during which the most violence was committed against the abortion industry, it is clear that all of this arm-flapping and hand-wringing about pro-life violence is nonsense. Of the seven murders that have occurred at American abortion mills in the last 34 years, five occurred in 1993 and 1994 alone. However, according to statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, during those same two years there were 2,154 other people killed in work-related homicides in the United States including seven school teachers, four members of the clergy, 10 lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, seven writers, six realtors, 22 waiters or waitresses, four groundskeepers, five architects, 40 garage or service station attendants, 23 auto mechanics, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers, six farmers and four carpenters.
In other words, during the period of the greatest violence against abortionists in history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined. This does not even take into account the taxi drivers, convenience store employees, police officers, firefighters, and others who were killed during that same time period.
The fact is, the abortion industry’s inability to recruit and keep employees has nothing to do with violence. The explanation most often given is the increasing stigma associated with abortion.
The abortion lobby had always counted on legalization to erase the stigma of abortion, but that never happened. What they refused to accept was that abortion is like pornography and prostitution in that the stigma is related to the act itself and not to its legal status. That means the stigma is never going to go away. Today, the abortion industry finally seems resigned to this and has decided that the stench of abortion is something they will just have to live with.
As legitimate an issue as stigma is, however, it is not the only thing that keeps these death camps understaffed. The abortion industry is also facing a financial crisis that has been brewing since the day this battle began. And this is a problem they can’t just live with.
In the first few years of legalized abortion, studies were taken to determine the cost of an abortion. The findings were that, generally speaking, the price was between $300 and $350. Interestingly, those figures have changed little since then. That begs the question: with no competition and a seemingly reliable demand, why have they been unable to raise prices in almost 35 years?
The answer is that, contrary to appearances, the demand is not reliable.
In any marketing environment, all decisions fall onto a “marginal / non-marginal” scale. Decisions based on “want” are considered marginal while those based on “need” are classified as non-marginal. A major factor in determining where a decision falls on this scale is its degree of price sensitivity. The more price sensitive something is, the more marginal the buying decision is. This is true about all purchasing decisions, including the decision about whether to “purchase” an abortion or not.
Since day one, the abortion industry has pushed this idea that when a woman does not want to be pregnant she will crawl through hell on broken glass to get an abortion. In other words, their contention is that the abortion decision is a non-marginal one. For that to be true, it would also have to be true that the cost of abortion does not significantly affect the abortion rate.
Contrary to abortion industry claims, the evidence does not support this. The financial publication, Economic Inquiry, Vol. XXVI, April 1988, produced a study about the relationship between abortion cost and abortion rates and found that, “The significant inverse relationship between the price of abortions and the abortion rate confirms that the fundamental law of demand is applicable to abortions.” In other words, as the cost of abortion goes up, the demand for abortion goes down. This finding has been confirmed by other independent studies which have also documented that an inverse relationship exists between the price of abortion and the rate of abortion.
Perhaps even more revealing is a quote from Colorado abortionist, Warren Hern. During a May, 1997, annual meeting of the National Abortion Federation held in Boston, Massachusetts, the subject was the use of ultrasound in abortion. Hern complained that paying for the ultrasound machine would increase the cost of an abortion by $25. In his own words, this would cause the patient load to plummet. What Hern was saying was that, not only does price affect the abortion rate, even small increases in price have an overpowering impact on it. This was real-world confirmation—from someone on the inside—that the abortion lobby’s “hell on broken glass” rhetoric is a lie and that the abortion decision is, in most cases, a marginal one.
The obvious solution to the abortion industry’s current financial dilemma would be for them to raise prices to meet their increased costs and simply make more money off fewer killings. But as fiscally reasonable as that may sound, the abortion lobby knows it is not a viable option. They have long understood that, in order to maintain abortion’s legality, they need the political and cultural inertia created by a high abortion rate. This has put them in a kind of “Catch 22” situation. They need higher abortion prices to solve their financial problems, but the lowered abortion rate produced by these higher prices would threaten their political survivability.
That is why the abortion industry has not raised prices for almost 35 years. The problem they now face is that the cost of doing business has risen dramatically during that time. So while a $350 abortion may have been profitable in 1973 dollars, it may not be profitable in today’s dollars.
That has prevented the abortion industry from being unable to compete for employees with the rest of the medical community. One result of this has been that the quality of the employees they can hire is abysmally low. With almost no exceptions, there is no way the typical abortion clinic worker could get a job in any other medical-related field. Another result has been that, other than the actual abortionists, most abortion industry workers make very little money. Even for staunchly pro-choice employees who are not bothered by the stigma, this has kept morale low and turnover rates astronomical.
The point of all this is brutally simple. In order to survive, the abortion industry has to find a way to raise their prices without lowering the abortion rate.
Enter Hillary Clinton.
Planned Parenthood’s current expansion is their way of betting that Slick Hilly is going to be the next president. They are also counting on her to install a system of socialized medicine that will include elective abortion. So even though the Choice Mafia rallies their troops with red-meat rhetoric about Supreme Court appointments who could take away “the right to choose,” what they are most giddy about is the possibility of government-funded abortions. That is the driving force behind Planned Parenthood’s expansion agenda. They see Hillary Care getting larger in the rearview mirror and are positioning themselves to be a major player in it.
You may think I’m baying at the moon here, but if there is one thing I know for certain it is this: at the moment national healthcare becomes a reality, the cost to the taxpayer for an abortion that now costs about $350 will, instantly, be many times that amount. I know this is true because a model for it already exists. All you have to do is imagine two women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting to have identical first-trimester abortions. One is paying cash; the second has a health insurance policy to cover her abortion. The first woman will probably get out the door for the usual $350 or so. But make no mistake about it, the second woman’s insurance company will be lucky to escape with anything less than a $3000 claim to pay.
That scenario is repeated at abortion clinics all across America every day. It is also why the nation’s death merchants see Hillary Care as their salvation. They are relying on socialized medicine to solve their current financial problems by converting every $350 private-pay abortion into a $3000 government-pay abortion. The icing on the cake is that, since the customers will be offered these abortions for “free,” the abortion rate is guaranteed to skyrocket.
Like I always say, if you want to understand the abortion business, just follow the money trail. The signpost ahead reads, Rodham and Gomorrah.
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.
Abortion enthusiast, Anna Quindlen, recently wrote an article for Newsweek Magazine in which she raised the issue of what the punishment should be for women who have abortions once they are again illegal. Her claim was that this is a question for which the pro-life movement has no answer. Of course, she is lying since most of the pro-life movement’s leaders have addressed this issue many times, over many years. The only problem is that, like the rest of our enemies, she just doesn’t like the answer.
Having said that, however, I will agree to take the bait and go down this dusty trail one more time. So here it goes.
While some of my fellow pro-lifers feel that jailing women who submit to illegal abortions is necessary to be consistent with the pro-life principle, most seem to agree with me that there is no practical incentive for doing so. Our view is that, for several pragmatic reasons, future laws against abortion should concentrate on the abortionist just as they did before Roe v. Wade.
To begin with, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible to obtain. In addition, the woman is the best source of information and evidence needed to convict the abortionist. If she faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion. That would make it almost impossible for the state to get the evidence needed to convict the abortionist and leave him free to kill again.
This doesn’t excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act. It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening. It’s no different than the authorities granting immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer. Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion. Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead, but imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future. If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making.
We should also consider that, given the shortage and expense of jail space in America, it makes no sense to incarcerate a woman who had one abortion when that same cell could hold an abortionist who might do them by the thousands. And let there be no mistake about it, jail is precisely where abortionists deserve to be. Their customers may or may not be fully aware of what they are doing, but no such defense can be made for them. When they pull those tiny arms and legs and heads out of women, they know for a fact that they are committing the most brutal of murders. I offer no apology for saying that there is not one person sitting in a prison cell anywhere in the world who committed an act worse than performing abortions. Furthermore, not one of those people victimized someone as helpless as an unborn baby. So not only are abortionists contract killers with the morals of sewer rats, they are cowards as well.
When discussing this punishment issue, something very curious inevitably creeps into the conversation. Although some pro-lifers argue for imprisoning women who submit to abortion, the people most adamant that this is the only rational policy are those who call themselves pro-choice. Like many other things they do, this exposes their cynicism and hypocrisy. On one hand, they try to frighten women with the suggestion that pro-lifers are going to have them tossed into jail. When we make it clear that we have no such intention, their response is to say that if we don’t call for women to be jailed the only conclusion is that even we are not really convinced of our position. It is classic abortion industry double-talk.
Now, I have a suggestion for the Anna Quindlens of the world that will resolve this whole issue. If these people think it’s unfair for only abortionists to be targeted, let them be the ones to lobby for legislation to put the women in jail. If instead of helping women facing unplanned pregnancies find alternatives to illegal abortions, the Choice Mafia would prefer to seek legislation to put them in prison, my gut feeling is that they will find little legislative support for it. But we’ll see. In the mean time, while they look for the best way to put all their customers in jail, those of us in the pro-life movement will focus on finding the fastest way to stop the killing.
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.