Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

I saw this post today on facebook and burst out laughing. I couldn’t help it. The utter hypocrisy of it was too much, especially coming from its source:

youre kidding meThe people that admin this page are in no way pro-child, pro-woman or pro-choice. Here are some examples of what I mean:

This is pro-child? The page admin thinks its hilarious,  so how can it be pro-child? It was pulled off my page around the holidays.

not prochoice

The comment underneath says “should’ve been aborted”.

Is THIS pro-child? Once again the page admin, who admits in the comments to putting the baby in there, thinks its hilarious.

Not prochoice2

no wayHe sure does show respect for the girl  too, doesn’t he? Pro-woman? I don’t think so.

How is this pro-woman or pro-child? Once again, the page admin thinks its hilarious:

not prochoice3

And this is how they treat those who think differently than they do. Not very pro-woman to speak to a lady like that:

not prochoice4

No MYFOB, you are not “pro-choice” you are pro-abortion, anti-child, and anti-woman. Until you give equal time to motherhood and adoption on your page instead of filling it with pro-abortion graphics and hate towards others, you will never be pro-choice. Please stop deluding yourselves otherwise.






Can I Be Pro-Life and Pro-Capital Punishment?

I am a Catholic, I’m pro-life,  pro-capital punishment and I don’t have a problem with war as long as it is justified.

I read a comment by a pro-abort that stated “Catholic’s make up their own rules. What suits them at the moment is perfectly acceptable. They can always go and “repent” later.”

This was in response to a comment made by another person posting that you can indeed be pro-life, okay with war, and pro-capital punishment.

Here is the Catholic Church’s stance on the issue of capital punishment:

The Church throughout  her  history  has  firmly held to the natural law principle that the state has the right to execute criminals who are a threat both to the innocent and to the harmony of society. One of the principal duties  of  the state is  to  protect   the  rights  of  its  citizens  from the unjust  taking  of  those  rights. The state itself  is supposed to be subordinate to this same principle so  that  its  citizens  can  feel secure that their individual, God given, rights are protected in every circumstance.  When the rights of the innocent person are violated by those who transgress the law the state has the right to use whatever means are necessary  and appropriate to secure the rights of its individual citizens and its society as a whole.  Without the protection of the state, exercised  according  to  the natural law,  the innocent suffer and  unjust aggressors prosper, order and harmony break down  and freedom for law-abiding citizens is lost. In the Old Testament God speaks of this necessary order continuously. Capital punishment  was even required by God to maintain the natural order and harmony of Israelite society. Jesus never once refuted this natural law precept which, as the Second Person of the Trinity,  He created in the first place.

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)


Catholicism’s stance on war is built on the Just War Theory, which says that all things being equal, the state has a right to wage war — just like it has a right to use capital punishment. However, just like with capital punishment, the right to wage war isn’t an absolute right.

The basis of the Just War Theory is the natural moral law, and it incorporates a moral evaluation before going to war (the reasons for it) and during it (the means used). Everything leading up to war and every act during it must fulfill certain criteria, otherwise, the conflict is judged to be an immoral war.

The Just War Theory can be broken down into two components:

  • Ius ad bellum (Latin for right to war or moral reasons that justify a country’s going to war)
  • Ius in bello (Latin for right in war or moral conduct during war).

The two components above are further elaborated in this way:

Before war:

  • Just cause (ius ad bellum): The reasons for going to war must be morally correct, for example to repel invading enemy forces.
  • Competent authority (ius ad bellum): Only legitimate, authentic, and authorized leaders can declare and involve the nation in war. Private citizens, corporations, special interest groups, associations, political parties, and so on, have no moral authority to declare war.
  • *Comparative justice (ius ad bellum): The values at stake must be worth the loss of life, the wounding of others, the risk of innocent victims and damage to property.
  • *Right intention (ius ad bellum): Acceptable reasons for going to war are a just cause, such as the stopping of an unjust aggressor, or having the goal of restoring peace rather than seeking revenge, retaliation, or total destruction of the enemy (without any possibility of surrender).
  • *Last resort (ius ad bellum): All viable alternatives must be exhausted before resorting to war. Going to war shouldn’t be the first step but the last one.
  • *Probability of success (ius ad bellum): A just war demands that the hope of winning the war is reasonable. Fighting just to make or prove a point or merely defending honor is foolish.
  • Proportionality (ius ad bellum): The evils and suffering that result from the war must be proportionately less or smaller than the evils or suffering, which would have ensued had there been no conflict.

During war:

  • Proportionality (ius in bello): A just war uses moral means during the execution of the war. Biological weapons are considered immoral, because they disproportionately harm more people and in more severity than is necessary for victory. Tactical nuclear weapons are only permissible if employed as a last resort, and there is significant accuracy and control to target only valid sites.
  • Discrimination of noncombatants (ius in bello): Military and strategic targets are the only morally permissible sites for attack. Civilian population centers and any place where noncombatants reside shouldn’t be targeted.

No, we don’t “make up our own rules to suit us at the moment.” So there is no need to “repent” later. Capital punishment and just war are part of our belief system, and have been from the beginning.

By the way, the number of deaths in 2011 from the death penalty? 43. Abortion? 333,964. That’s just Planned Parenthood’s number.

Victims of Rape and Incest Deserve Better than Abortion

The most common myth in the abortion debate is that victims of rape and incest will automatically want an abortion.

Its untrue that most victims of rape and incest want abortions, and the small minority that do regret the decision.

What do the victims have to say?

  • Two major studies of pregnant rape victims found that 3/4 of these women chose to give birth.
  •  None of the women who gave birth said they did not want their children or wished they had aborted instead.
  •  Of those who aborted, nearly half did so because of the demands of others.
  •  94% of women who gave birth said abortion would not be a good solution to a pregnancy resulting from rape.
  •  93% of those who had abortions said it “had not been a good solution to their problems” and they “would not recommend it to others in their situation”
  • Nearly all incest victims who had an abortion reported no input in the decision; instead, their parents or the abuser made the decision for them.
  • All “explicitly stated that abortion was not a good solution and they would not recommend it to others.”
  • Of the  incest victims who carried their children to term, all were happy they had given birth. They also “unanimously rejected abortion as a good option for incest related pregnancies.”

Victims of rape and incest do not want abortions because they feel it would be another act of violence against their bodies.

Making it through a pregnancy is a victims way of overcoming the abuse.The selfless act of giving birth is proof that she is better than her attacker. For victims of incest, it is a way out, a way to expose the person that abused her and allow her to begin healing.

Why do pro-aborts feel that victims of violence need abortion?

During the battle to legalize abortion, advocates used examples of rape and incest to lead people to question the “right to life.” Once they convinced people to make exceptions for the tiny number of cases, they began to exploit and broaden the loophole until they got what they wanted: Abortion on demand for any reason at any time.

In a sense, abortion advocates raped these women all over again by using them to further their agenda.

If pro-aborts are truly for “choice” and “pro-woman” like they claim, they should stop using these women as cannon fodder and start to listen.


The Pro-Aborts are Twisting the Bible… Again.

Pro-aborts try to use the bible to justify killing a human being in the womb.

Here’s the latest round of verses they try to use to make their case:

Genesis 2:7  Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

Take a closer look into that verse. It clearly states that God  breathed the breath of life, it did not state that Adam took a breath. Since Adam was the very first human being, God had to bring him to life since there was no egg, sperm or womb to do the job.

Job 33:4 For the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Again it states “the breath of the Almighty”  It does not state that Elihu  took a breath.

God gives us the breath of life. That breath begins at conception, not when a child is born.

Here are a few more:

Ezekiel 37:5-6 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look! I am going to put breath into you and make you live again! I will put flesh and muscles on you and cover you with skin. I will put breath into you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

This is taken out of context. Read the chapter from the beginning and you get a whole new picture:

The Lord took hold of me, and I was carried away by the Spirit of the Lord to a valley filled with bones. He led me all around among the bones that covered the valley floor. They were scattered everywhere across the ground and were completely dried out. Then he asked me, “Son of man, can these bones become living people again?”

“O Sovereign Lord,” I replied, “you alone know the answer to that.”

Then he said to me, “Speak a prophetic message to these bones and say, ‘Dry bones, listen to the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look! I am going to put breath into you and make you live again! I will put flesh and muscles on you and cover you with skin. I will put breath into you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

The bones in this passage that the Lord is speaking about are bones of people who have already lived and died.

God is the only one who can give life back to a long dead body; or in this case, a set of dried up old bones.

Exodus 21:22  “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely.[a] If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.

This is not only taken out of context, but misunderstood as well. They are assuming that “no further injury” means no injury to the mother, but it also applies to the child. Reading the rest of the paragraph makes this clear:

Verse 23-25 states: 23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

“A life for a life” means the life of the mother or the life of the child.

In Numbers 5:22 The pro-aborts claim that God orders an abortion. I don’t know what version they are reading, (no citation is given, except for a link to another blog post about this passage) This is what they claim it states in the blog post: “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” But the New Living Translation the verse reads like this:

“Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel”

I take that as the woman will become infertile. Sorry guys, no abortion here. I’ve checked several other bible versions, and they all read that passage the same.

There are plenty of verses in the bible that support that life begins at conception though. Some can even argue that life for us in the eyes of God begins before conception, since God knows us all before we are born.

Jeremiah 1:5 RSV

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:13-15 RSV

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John [see John The Baptist]. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great before The Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

Psalm 139:13 RSV

“For Thou didst form my inward parts, Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

Genesis 25:23-26 RSV

“And The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.” When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came forth, and his hand had taken hold of Esau’s heel; so his name was called Jacob.”

Luke 1:30-31 RSV

“And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.”

Psalm 139:15-16 NLT

You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.
The passages quoted here by pro-aborts trying to support a biblical justification for abortion came from a lovely little blog called the christian left blog. Well the name of the blog alone is a dead giveaway that the passages are going to be taken out of context, twisted or misinterpreted to suit the leftist agenda. These folks are pseudo-Christians. They do not follow all of God’s word. They follow what they agree with and twist the rest to suit them or ignore it outright.

They need to take a word of advice from Gregory Koukl. “Never read a bible verse!” In his article he states:

“When I’m on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I’m asked, even when I’m totally unfamiliar with the verse. It’s an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.

I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what’s going on.

This works because of a basic rule of all communication: Meaning always flows from the top down, from the larger units to the smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.”

Wise advice.

Until next time friends, God Bless.

What Do They Mean By “Choice”?

What do Pro-choicers mean by “choice” anyway?

Actually I’m not sure I can call them that anymore. Planned Parenthood is distancing itself from the word “choice”. Personally I think its fitting that they stop using that word, since they aren’t about “choice” at all. I prefer to call them Pro-abortion.

So anyway; what do they mean by choice?

If you dare to mention carrying the child to term, They screech that you are for “forced birth”.

If you dare mention adoption, they start ranting and raving about “all the poor orphans”. One pro-choice woman had the gall to describe women who wanted to adopt a baby as “selfish”.

So what they truly mean by choice is the choice to abort. I’ve been dealing with pro-aborts for over a year now, here on the blog and on facebook. I have yet to find one that would support the choice to parent or the choice to put the child up for adoption. NOT ONE thought that either of those plans was a good idea.

So yes, it’s a real good idea for Planned Parenthood to distance itself from the word “choice”. It shows they are admitting that “choice” is not what they are about at all.

Until next time friends, God Bless.


Reflections on The March for Life

This is from my friend Mary Anne, who participated on the March for Life at the capitol of her home state yesterday:


As I stood at the State Capitol yesterday, I held my sign up high. I caught sight of several people taking pictures of my sign and what was written on it. I saw people laughing and smiling – and then they read my sign. I saw children reading it, old people reading it, groups of laughing teen boys reading it. I saw a lot of people read it, and then hang their head. I watched it.

One man quietly approached me, read my sign, and asked me a couple of questions, and kindly said, “Bless you” as he finished.

I felt peaceful and courageous and dignified yesterday. I walked, and I held my head up high. I was carrying a sign that no one could look away from comfortably.

I was the face, I was the scar, I was the tears, I was the survivor-ship, of abortion, that everyone knows about, even if they don’t want to admit it. People looked at me and they saw a quiet lady who HAD been there and is now telling about it.

And I’m not going away, and I’m not going to stop. I am going to call out this industry; I am going to call out this movement, until the day I die. And each day I am getting better and better at it.


I’ll tell you something I noticed, even though I’ve done this for several years now at the March For Life. Our pro-life marches are quiet, dignified, courteous towards everyone. I have yet to see one rude person. The teenagers haven’t defaced their own bodies with markings and piercings, as if to say they hate themselves. They are courteous, and well-mannered. They don’t require policemen to save them from themselves; they wave at and thank the policemen for their protective presence. I’ve seen 14 year-old boys who were more chivalrous towards women than some adult pro-choice men I’ve encountered. I saw yesterday a large group of young high school men who I would have trusted my life with. That’s the one thing that stands out to me the most of all – – the increasing presence of young people at pro-life marches.

I cannot say that about pro-choice rallies; they are loud, they yell, they wave their fists in the air, they shout and clench their teeth and look so very angry. They have had the federally mandated right to abort for forty years now. They got what they wanted – and now they have a president who is as militantly anti-life as they are, so they should be deliriously happy. So WHAT are they angry about? They shout obscenities, sexualize women, they use horribly profane words, they call women (and women call each other) the “c-word”.

They sometimes threaten people, fights break out, requiring the resources of taxpayer-funded police. They throw food and wear ghastly pink vagina costumes and draw Magic Marker horrible quips on their defiantly-bared pregnant stomachs about how their unborn child WILL be “pro-choice” – and then high-five each other about how hilarious they look. I didn’t find it funny; it made me cry. The young men are coarse and aggressive, and ironically as disrespectful towards the women there as they are towards themselves – even when it’s a rally supposedly to support women.

You never heard anything about affirmation of life and inner peace, nor about any kind of healing, nor one single, solitary word about love. But you hear a whole lot about “rights”, about “demands”, about “Me, me, me”, and “I want…”

It deeply embarrasses me and worries me about the condition of those men’s and women’s hearts; how seduced they have been behind the euphemisms of killing human life and calling it “choice”, of refusing to refer to an unborn human being as a “baby” while clinging to the term “fetus” as if their own lives depended on it. Of how utterly seduced they have been behind the very rhetoric that claims it respects women and yet is indifferent to them. If THEY suffer from abortion there will be none (other than pro-life organizations, that is) that will come to their side and care for them. But they don’t know it yet.

And, sadly, like I and so many, many others, they will find it out when they, too, seek that abortion (ironically, so many women who scream for abortion rights and dismiss it as a non-event have never even HAD an abortion. They can’t tell you what transpires in an abortion and neither can they recite for you the risks and complications of abortion. But they CAN legalistically spout off the laws concerning abortion. So what do they know about abortion up close?)

Something else you’ll never hear at a pro-choice rally is quiet. Perhaps prayer. What do you pray about, when you believe it’s okay to kill an unborn child? How do you ask Christ to bless you while you kill human life in the womb?

How do you call yourself a Christian, because a genuine Christian is someone who believes in the infallible words of Christ, and a few of those words were about how He knew us before we were born, that every hair on our heads is counted, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that He has a plan and a hope for our lives and our future.

How do you justify to yourself, spiritually, intellectually, psychologically, that that is NOT a God who holds human life sacred and asks us to, too?

How do you call yourself a Christian, and rationalize to yourself that you’ll follow this part, but not that part, of the Bible? Isn’t that declaring yourself higher and wiser than God, when you take the power over life and death into your own hands?

The sign Mary Anne held had these words: One one side it said, “ABORTION HURTS WOMEN. IT HURT ME.”

Mary Anne is wonderful, intelligent, kind and compassionate human being, I am honored to count her among my friends.

Until next time, God Bless.

15 Things to Consider about Abortion

My Co-admin on our facebook page posted this. I thought it was great and decided to share it here.

This was Written by John Piper, he is the Pastor for Preaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. this was originally posted on Resurgence.


Given that today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, here are 15 things to consider about abortion:

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb (except in the case of abortion).

2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.

3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is still legal beyond this limit.

4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.

5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.

6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.

7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.

8. Ultrasounds have given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, and responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.

9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.

10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.

11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.

12. The outcast, the disadvantaged, and the exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.

13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.

14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.

15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins and will give all who trust in him the help they need to do everything that life requires.



This post is adapted from Pastor John’s article on Desiring God. For more on abortion, watch a biblical theology of the issue in this sermon from Pastor Mark.