Archive for August 28th, 2008

Dems’ Abortion Machinery Rolls Forward (Warning: Graphic Images)

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

I really try not to use “shock” images to make my points and I’ve deleted this post twice now, thinking that these images are too intense for our blog. But this is one time I’m going to go against my usual mores and show images that are not pleasant and might offend.

I truly do not understand how a Christian can support the political party that stands 100% behind this:

Aborted 7 Month Old Baby

Aborted by Salt Poisoning Baby

You Christians who are Democrats must get a completely different meaning from the Bible than I do. Abortion is wrong, plain and simple. Yet your political party has this to say about it:

“[The Democratic Party] strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

How do you justify this against the Word of God and still continue to support these people? I just cannot understand it.

Over the past year or so, we have been presented with so many reasons why abortion on demand should be ended. We’ve blogged about most of them.
From exposure that “Roe vs. Wade” was a sham, based on false testimony, to the failure of embryonic stem cells to yield better results than adult stem cells, the justifications for abortion, in anything but life threatening situations, is null and void.

DENVER – Outside the security perimeter at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, pro-life advocates have assembled a 600-foot long protest sign, held rallies in front of Planned Parenthood and quietly slipped roses – in honor of the victims of abortion – into the protective metal mesh surrounding the Pepsi Center, but inside, the abortion advocacy continues undeterred.

The party states that it “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama fits that agenda perfectly, with his documented opposition as a state lawmaker even to a requirement that abortionists provide necessary medical care to a baby who survives an abortion because it would be too much of a burden.

Further, the DNC has featured a series of speakers who move beyond just a pro-abortion stance to actively participating in the industry, including Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, the largest player in the nation’s billion dollar abortion cartel.

As LifeNews.com reported, she told delegates, “I’m proud that for only the second time in our history, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund has endorsed a candidate for president, Barack Obama.”

Obama, who has supported abortions in situations where even the National Abortion Rights Action League has been neutral, is being joined on the Democratic ticket by another abortion advocate, Sen. Joe Biden.

Earlier in the convention, it was NARAL chief Nancy Keenan speaking to DNC delegates about the benefits of abortion.

“I’m proud to say that my party – the Democratic Party – is united behind and supports a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.”

“This is appalling,” Leslie Hanks, vice president of the Colorado Right to Life, told WND. “To see millions of innocent human lives extinguished and then to celebrate that is very disappointing.”

Estimates for the death toll since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling struck down state abortion bans range from 40 million to 50 million Americans.

Hanks said it’s especially disturbing to see that a black man like Barack Obama “doesn’t understand his race is being decimated by abortion.”

The issue of Planned Parenthood locating many of its abortion businesses in minority neighborhoods, as it has in the past year with its new Denver abortion provider, reportedly the largest abortion megaclinic in the nation, was the subject of a rally in Denver during the DNC.

Original Link.

‘Socially Responsible’ Investor Blacklists McDonald’s

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

The president of a pro-family values mutual fund company says the extreme actions of McDonald’s has forced the investment firm to publicly clarify that its portfolios won’t include any stock in the worldwide hamburger retailer.

Timothy Plan’s socially responsible investing includes screening of companies whose revenues or actions support pornography, abortion, anti-family entertainment, or promotion of non-married lifestyles. But Art Ally, president of the investment company, says his group normally does not spotlight or publish notices on businesses they screen out. In this case, however, he says the Timothy Plan could not stay silent when McDonald’s went “over the edge.”

That aggressive approach? The fast-food giant’s $20,000 donation to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce for a seat on its board of directors, and labeling of those who oppose the homosexual agenda as “haters” — both of which Ally says marked an extreme step up from sponsorship of TV programs and movies with anti-family and pornographic entertainment. Those actions, coupled with offering its employees transgender health benefits, have kept McDonald’s out of Timothy Plan investments to this point, according to Ally.

He believes corporate officials at McDonald’s are shirking their responsibility to make money for shareholders, by alienating the company’s large “family-oriented” customer base with support of the homosexual agenda.

Original Link.

Pelosi’s Abortion theology ‘mangles’ Christian teaching

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

DENVER – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s abortion theology remains under attack, with Catholic members of Congress writing her to castigate her re-interpretation of church teachings and a priest on the EWTN network condemning her for a perspective in which, he believes, she would bomb a city full of innocent people.

WND reported earlier when the Denver Catholic archbishop, Charles Chaput, said Pelosi and those who claim abortion can be reconciled with the Christian faith simply don’t know Christianity.

The issue is hitting hard at the Democratic Party as it holds its 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver this week to nominate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, an ardent abortion proponent who has gone beyond the desires of even the National Abortion Rights Action League in advocating for the controversial procedure. In fact, as a state lawmaker in Illinois, he declined to support a requirement that an abortionist provide necessary medical services to a baby who survives an abortion, because it would be a burden on the abortionist.

“It’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches,” Chaput said. “The future of a community, a people, a church and a nation depends on the children who will inherit it. If we prevent our children from being born, we remove ourselves from the future. It’s really that simple. No children, no future.”

Pelosi on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was asked when human life begins. She said:

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

Her response, however, mangled Catholic doctrine, charges a new letter from 19 Catholic members of Congress.

“We are compelled to refute your error,” the letter said.

“In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’: ‘Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being,'” said the letter, signed by Reps. Thaddeus McCotter, Steve Chabot, Virginia Foxx, Phil Gingrey, Peter King (NY), Steve King (IA), Dan Lungren, Devin Nunes, John Sullivan, Pat Tiberi, John Boehner, Phil English, Jean Schmidt, Jim Walsh, Jeff Fortenberry, Michael McCaul, Paul Ryan, Walter Jones and Mike Ferguson.

“To this, you responded, ‘I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,'” the letter said.

“Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion. From the Apostles of the 1st Century to Pope John Paul the Great ‘the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,'” the letter said.

“Your erroneous claim about the history of the church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common faith,” the letter said.

A WND message requesting a comment from Pelosi was not returned.

Original Link.

Obama Conceives the Inconceivable on Conception

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

A significant majority of people believes that life begins at conception. There is no “gray area”, as the abortionist would have us believe, when a human is not a human.
Republican president hopeful, John McCain, doesn’t have any problems verbalizing this concept. Not so for the Democratic president hopeful, Barack Obama.

Asked by Rick Warren when he believes “a baby gets human rights,” John McCain didn’t hesitate to say “at the moment of conception.” For Barack Obama, however, this question remains a struggle. “Well, ah, ah, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective,” Obama pondered to Warren, “answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.”

Barack Obama doesn’t like this question. And those nit-picky Christians keep springing it upon him during these religious forums.

Obama was asked about conception at the “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College in April, where he likewise dissembled: “This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So, I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”

Well, apparently not extraordinarily powerful enough for Obama to seek an answer for these debates.

Obama’s responses beg another question: If he’s unclear about this fundamental matter, which any embryologist could easily clarify for him, why hasn’t he consulted someone? He is also no expert on say, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or the newest bill before Congress on tax policy. Senators, like all of us, don’t begin from a starting point of expertise on all these issues. They learn; or, their staff learns and advises them.

So, to repeat the question, why, since he first publicly pondered the conception question at Messiah in April, hasn’t Obama sought answers? What could be a more important life question?

This prompts an even bigger question: Why in the world is Obama urging embryonic stem-cell research? Why does he promise that if he becomes president, he will reverse President Bush’s prohibitions on embryonic research? How can he rush into such actions if he doesn’t even know whether an embryo is human life? That’s recklessly irresponsible.

I could understand Obama advocating such research if he was convinced that embryos aren’t life, and that life doesn’t begin at conception. I would disagree, but I could understand.

For those not familiar with embryonic stem-cell research, it works like this: Human embryos are created for the explicit purpose of being dissected and destroyed for medical research. Every human being who has ever lived began as an embryo. In this brave new world, however, there are people who favor raising and exterminating embryos before they become human life.

Since Obama isn’t sure whether life begins at conception, he should err on the side of caution—on the side of life. A demolition crew makes sure there’s no one left in the abandoned building before destroying it. The crew chief wouldn’t dare say, “I’m not sure if there are human beings in there, but go ahead and blow it up.” Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy would drag that chief in chains before a Congressional committee.

As is often the case with modern liberalism, Obama’s stance generates a potpourri of added contradictions. Consider one of the main reasons cited by liberals for opposing capital punishment: they argue that there’s always a chance that a condemned individual may be innocent. If we can’t know with absolute certainty that an alleged murderer has committed murder, then we should err on the side of caution—on the side of life. He should be spared execution.

Conversely, then, if Obama isn’t sure about the humanity of the embryo, why go ahead and execute it? What could be more innocent than an embryo?

Liberals think they’re clever when they ask how conservatives can be pro-life on abortion while supporting capital punishment. Quite the contrary, there’s a much more troubling contradiction among liberals who are pro-choice on abortion while opposing capital punishment. Obama’s position of “don’t-know-but-kill-anyway” on embryos is worse than either.

The truth, of course, is that Barack Obama knows life begins at conception. He isn’t stupid. As Bill Clinton has conceded, “everyone knows life begins biologically at conception.”

Yes, but not everyone can be honest about it. Barack Obama can’t give a truthful answer because doing so would undermine the moral credibility of his position—from embryonic research to unrestricted abortion.

Like John Kerry, like Al Gore, and like the entire leadership of the modern Democratic Party, Barack Obama has sold his soul to the pro-choice lobby. That’s quite sad, because it means a lot of would-be humans will not be permitted to become humans. That is not American leadership—and it is certainly not “hope.”

Original Link.