The Leftist War Against Children Part 1, Abortion on Demand [Video]

abortion, leftismThe 2020 election season in America has thus far demonstrated that not only is there a radical divide between Leftists and conservatives in politics but there exists such a divide in culture as well. Nowhere is that divide more exhibited, nor the contrast so stark as between the Leftist and conservative camps’ views of families and especially their views concerning children.

In the next few articles, we will explore how the Leftist treatment of children is not only the opposite of the conservative view but amounts to an attack on many fronts to the child’s life, identity, and necessary place within a family. The Left is ruthlessly waging war on children in America, and around the globe.

The single most incriminating evidence of this is found in the vast gulf between each camp’s views and actions concerning legalized abortion. A piece of this evidence was on display on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building on March 4, 2020.

Leftist Protest for More Abortion No Matter What 

Inset.1.3.8.2020There is a case currently before the SCOTUS concerning a Louisiana law that requires abortion clinics and personnel to operate with the same standards as other health clinics in the state. This would mean that many abortion clinics would close because neither the clinic conditions or the abortion “doctors” can meet those requirements.

A lively protest by the pro-abortion crowd at the Supreme Court last week was demanding the Court rule this law unconstitutional under Roe v Wade. There was a time not that many years ago when the plea from the “pro-choice” crowd was that abortion should be ” safe, legal, and rare.”

With this protest, the Left has publicly announced that the only part of that three-word phrase remaining is that abortion should be “legal.” ‘Safe’ and ‘rare’ are now less desired than legality when it comes to abortion according to the Left.

Leftist pro-aborts have demonstrated that this is the case with increasing fervor in the last few years. These so-called ‘feminists’ have been arguing in recent times that abortion is not really a necessary evil but is, in fact, a positive moral good!

This argument goes beyond words mouthed by extremist advocates of abortion on demand. Witness the case of abortionist Kermit Gosnell just last year, who before being finally brought to justice was allowed to operate with impunity for decades even though his clinic, his personnel, and his practice was manifestly harmful and even deadly for many women.

What enabled such a predator as Kermit Gosnell to remain in practice for more than 20 years prior to 2010? It was the complicity of left-leaning bureaucrats and elected officials who believe abortion is so sacrosanct that death, injury or sterilization of women is just the cost of defending the ‘right to choose.’ Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three counts of murder on May 12, 2013, for killing babies, “who authorities say were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy clinic,” He was sentenced the next day to two life terms in prison. He avoided the death penalty by agreeing not to appeal his conviction.

This reveals the Leftist belief that legalized abortion under any conditions no matter how horrible is to be encouraged at all costs. It also means that the humanity of the unborn child is not even to be considered by the “woke” protestors favoring a woman’s so-called “right to choose.”

The devaluation of the child’s life in the abortion procedure is now second-nature among Leftists. In fact, in most cases when one hears the pro-abortion rhetoric tossed out by Leftists today the fact that a human child lives within the womb at whatever stage of gestation is simply ignored.

The Academy and Political Arenas Are Relentlessly Pro-Abortion

11965180126_c8c0a50901_wThere are those in high standing within the academic establishment who will claim that even if the child in the womb is a living human being, he or she can and should be killed if the mother wishes it to be so. Moreover, this is still considered an ethical action if the child happens to survive the abortion attempt and is alive after exiting the womb!

Here is part of an account given by a student at Harvard University in 2010.

I walked into my “Ethics” class the next morning prepared to have my comment on the case be this: “There is no ethical dilemma here.  Dr. Chin did exactly what his professional ethics (not to mention his humanity!) would require him to do—save the baby.  The nurse called him in to be a physician to the new-born child—not because the mother needed care.  He had been summoned for the baby and thus was professionally obligated to help the child.  He did.” …I was stunned by the responses that followed, the essences of which were “HOW DARE the physican treat that baby!” He mentions that during an hour-long discussion there were only three others beside himself who thought it was right to save the baby. 92% of students in an ethics course at the most prestigious University in the nation, perhaps in the world believed the baby should have been left to die. Those students weren’t taught that at Harvard, they already believed it when they got there. They brought those beliefs into the first day of class. The professor himself was with the 92% opinion. He justified letting the child perish, by saying:  “The only thing that matters here is:   Who are the decision makers? …Can the fetus make a decision?”

This horrid philosophy is being manifested at the political level, as was demonstrated by the governor of the state of Virginia just over a year ago. Governor Ralph Northam is the most notorious figure in this matter.

His clear admission that the new bill proposed in his state would allow the killing of a child already born has shocked many. However, that shock wasn’t found within his own party. Truly the unthinkable of past times is being boldly proclaimed as a righteous defense “of women’s rights.” That is how New York Governor Andrew Cuomo characterizes his state’s new abortion till birth law.

Governors are not the sole proponents of such evil. The aforementioned protest in front of the Supreme Court building on March 4th was joined by a very prominent Democrat U.S. Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer who said the following,

Here is an example of a Leftist Democratic politician jumping into the war against children with the intention of visiting death upon them at the start of their lives, and harboring no qualms about announcing his intentions, even going so far as to threaten SCOTUS justices by name. It is evident that Leftism as a whole, culturally, politically, and in practice regard pre-born and even some already-born children as enemies and the more of their blood spilled the better as far as they are concerned.

Yet the battlefield doesn’t stop at the Planned Parenthood clinic doors or the Supreme Court steps. The Leftist war against children is waged on those who survive the abortionist’s knife further into the childhood years as will be discussed in part two.

Men of bloodshed hate the blameless, but the upright are concerned for his life. Proverbs 29:10 [NASB]

Sources: The New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation,1995

Featured and Top image courtesy of Debra Sweet’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of jbdodane’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of GUE/NGL’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Advertisements

The Best State of The Union Speech Ever Given [Video]

47843103822_e9a7043063_kOn February 4, 2020, I listened to the best State of the Union address ever given by a President of the United States of America. It was so exceptional that I did something I never do; I listened to the speech again.

The speech itself began with a notable moment of enthusiasm from the Republican contingent in the House chamber who chanted “Four more years,” for about 30 seconds before the President even began speaking. One might have thought this would be a rare highlight during a speech that is traditionally lengthy and boring.

However, as President Trump began speaking it soon became clear that there were many more significant highlights to follow. The theme of his speech was “the great American comeback,” and he provided more than enough substance to justify adopting this theme.

America’s Comeback to Greatness and More

President Trump’s introduction was a sweeping view of all that has been accomplished for the betterment of America under his leadership, beginning with the economic boom resulting from his policies, the rebuilding of America’s military, and the successful efforts to secure our borders. He then pronounced that the “State of our union is stronger than ever before.”

Trump, State of the UnionThere are those among Americans who may have assumed that the President was engaging in hyperbole with that statement. However, any fair-minded individual, friend or foe of the President, was going to be treated to a solid and enthusiastic defense of his characterization of the state of America’s union.

President Trump moved seamlessly from one topic to another in a tour-de-force of American optimism backed by actual results in measurable terms that came because of specific policies he enacted as the Chief Executive. In terms of economics, he cited the results of job growth that hasn’t been seen in over 50 years, as well as historic lows in the unemployment rate in every category!

He tied those gains directly to the massive tax-cuts and the unprecedented de-regulation of his administration with surgical precision and pride in American accomplishment. The pattern was repeated with every subject from the rebuilding of the military through a historic investment, which enabled the destruction of ISIS and removal from the earth the two terrorists Al Baghdadi and Soleimani, to the measurable improvements in health care and the new price transparency laws for the medical industry.

There wasn’t a single arena of important public policy that the President didn’t address in the speech. Immigration, education, religious freedom, foreign policy, trade, the 2nd Amendment, and more were all addressed from a common-sense, results-based Conservative philosophy.

Moreover, the President showed that by fulfilling the promises he made in the campaign on these kinds of issues, there has been a large measurable improvement in every area. His resume is impeccable, and he made a dynamic case for re-election in November.

However, that wasn’t what vaulted this speech to the best SOTU I’ve ever heard. It was rather the extraordinary personal stories attached to the achievements so effectively throughout Trump’s address that convinced me in the end.

The Personal, Life-Changing Stories Moved the Heart

Throughout the speech, the President presented special guests whose personal stories reflected the success of his vision for making and keeping America a great, no, the greatest of nations. For instance, President Trump honored exceptional service and patriotism with two military and one civilian who were his guests.

Tuskegee Airmen, State of the UnionThe youngest of this trio was Army veteran Tony Rankins, who was the beneficiary of economic “opportunity zones” provided by Trump’s policies in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was formerly living a life of drug addiction, losing his family and homelessness, but through found a construction company investing in “opportunity zones,” and is now a tradesman with that firm, drug-free and reunited with his family.

Later the President introduced Iain Lamphier, a young man who is the top graduate of the Aerospace Career Education Program and desires to one-day attend the U.S. Air Force Academy and become of member of the newest outgrowth of the Air Force, the “Space Force,” created by Trump.

Then he introduced the lad’s great grandfather who is 100 years old, a World War II veteran, and former member of the famed Tuskegee Airman, a historic all-black squadron of pilots during the war. To further honor Charles McGee, already the recipient of multiple military honors, the President announced that he had earlier promoted McGee to Brigadier General and he has now retired as General McGee.

The third special honoree of President Trump was a civilian who was completely surprised by being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the speech. It is the highest civilian award given in America and the man who received it has been most responsible for the entire resurrection of the conservative movement in our time, beginning as a lone voice 32 years ago.

Rush Limbaugh is the greatest pioneer in modern radio broadcasting and has been the most influential spokesman for liberty and conservative thought for more than three decades. In this brief video clip, the President makes the announcement of this award, and why he is doing the presentation at that time.

While watching this presentation, I was genuinely touched because of the influence of Rush upon me since I first heard him. I began listening to this man shortly after he was syndicated on national radio and I was instantly hooked by his wisdom and humor, as were millions of others, and conservative talk radio was reborn.

Rush’s reaction was one of genuine shock melting into humble gratitude and joy for being so honored. He had announced being diagnosed with advanced lung cancer the day before on his program and now received both an honor and a great encouragement from the President. It was one of a series of wonderful moments featured in Trump’s address.

In addition, the President showed support for the struggle against tyranny in Venezuela by featuring the newly-elected President in exile, Juan Guaido, the leader of the opposition to Socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro. He touted his pro-life stance by introducing a woman and her daughter who was born pre-mature at an almost unheard of 21 weeks and is now a healthy two-year-old child and announcing a grant of 50 million dollars for advanced neo-natal research on her behalf.

President Trump highlighted his policy of expanded school choice in education with the story of a young woman who would now be allowed to attend the school of her choice due to an “opportunity scholarship,” provided by his program. And in another especially touching moment, he reunited a soldier who had been deployed to Afghanistan four times with his wife and children who were special guests of the President.

The Speech Effectively Showed Failures of the Political Left and Highlighted the Solutions

The President effectively showed the policy failures of the Democrats and contrasted them with his successful solutions throughout the speech. One of the most effective demonstrations pointed out that the drop of over 75% in illegal border crossings since May of 2019 was partly due to the bravery and service of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE officers.

Sanctuary cities, State of the UnionHe went on to show that with the old “catch and release” policies of the Obama administration, which he ended, and the current policies of “sanctuary cities” and even “sanctuary states,” criminals pose real threats and cause real harm to American citizens. The President told the story of one criminal illegal alien who was detained by California sheriffs and then released per the state’s sanctuary laws in December of 2018.

This criminal went on a crime spree a couple of days later in which three people were shot, and one died as a result with the criminal firing eight bullets into his body. President Trump featured one of the grieving brothers, Jody Jones, as his guest and had him stand to lengthy applause.

President Trump then mentioned that Senator Thom Tillis [R-NC] who had just introduced legislation that would allow individuals and families such as the Jones family to sue sanctuary cities and states for losses if family members are hurt or killed as a result of those policies.

In much the same manner, when introducing the mother whose child had survived premature birth at 21 weeks, the President took the Democrats to task for their support of abortion until the point of birth, and in some cases beyond the time of birth.

On issue after issue, it became clear throughout the SOTU presentation that the Trump presidency was delivering sensational results, and that the policies advocated by the Left had failed before and promised only failure in the future.

President Trump Cast a Strong Vision for a Stronger America Going Forward

President Trump isn’t one to rest in his past accomplishments, and in this speech laid out concrete actions that are already ongoing or proposed to make an even stronger America possible in the future. For example, he is laboring to put into place a revamped system of immigration based on merit so that America will be attracting those persons who can contribute to the benefit of the nation and not become a perpetual burden on the taxpayer.

Inset.4.2.7.2020On the front of judicial court appointments, the President highlighted the incredible success already achieved by confirming almost 200 judges to the federal bench, including two Supreme Court Justices that are constitutionalists. His goal is to continue that trend and return the courts to their Constitutional roots insuring a stronger republic in the future.

At another point in the address, President Trump asked Congress to support a new program called “Artemis” and put America at the forefront of new space exploration. He called it “America’s manifest destiny in the stars,” and plans are to put the first woman on the moon and become the first nation to plant our flag on Mars!

Moreover, the President did not mention something almost everyone thought he would mention, the sham impeachment process. On the eve of a vote in the Senate to possibly remove him from office, President Trump ignored the failed sham and exuded stern confidence that was its own rebuke of the phony process born of the Left’s vindictive heart.

Finally, I must mention that the President touted new efforts in his administration to protect religious liberty in public education. Trump announced the plan in January of this year.

The White House said the plan is to “help safeguard students’ rights by giving education providers and students the most current information concerning prayer in public schools.” …The Education Department also will update 2003 guidance regarding prayer in public schools and streamline a federal complaint process for students alleging discrimination by authorities. …Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for First Liberty, was at the White House for the announcement along with clients Hannah Allen and former football coach Joe Kennedy. “We commend President Trump for his strong efforts to protect America’s first freedom – religious freedom,” he said. “These revisions to the Guidelines on Prayer and Religious Expression ensure that the religious liberty of students in public schools is protected.”

This effort has the potential to shape a new generation in faith and morality and produce results that tend toward a more civil and righteous society in America. That is a future that can only enhance America’s greatness as a people by elevating our goodness as a people.

Much more was packed into this ‘triumph deluxe’ than I can relate in this writing. However, the future under a renewed President Trump and a second term promise to unleash the almost unlimited potential for an even greater and stronger America going forward.

Any American with a heart to see the nation stronger and more prosperous could not help but be encouraged by the speech. The President’s address was a spectacular reminder of what our nation has already accomplished under his leadership, with God’s help, how the future is bright and beckoning us to new heights of greatness as the world’s firebrand of freedom.

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Brian Copeland’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Gilbert Mercier’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of sea turtle’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Steve Rhodes‘ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Mike Lawrence’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

“Pro-Choice” Depravity Reaches New Depths of Evil

5065857873_5fd57bd361_b

This author has been ardently pro-life for about 40 years. Along the way, I have participated in some protests by marching with thousands and in others by praying alone in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, as well as helping establish Crisis Pregnancy Care centers in two communities.

During this time, I have also followed the antics and arguments of the “pro-choice” crowd closely and written much about the evil nature of the “pro-choice” philosophy. Earlier this year this vile doctrine of the Left plumbed the depths of evil to the very bottom when politicians in New York and Virginia promoted killing the baby up to, and even beyond, leaving the womb.

Or so I thought. I should have known better. I actually underestimated how grotesque  “pro-choice” actions can, and have become.

One might wonder what could possibly be worse than executing infants even after they are born. The answer is found when the motives of the murderers are seen.

Two recent reports concerning murderous motives used to destroy innocent human life revealed a new depth of depravity in the name of the ‘right’ to be “pro-choice.”

Baby Body Parts Peddled for Politics and Profit 

AbortionThis story is not new, but it is also not well-publicized and non-existent on the Leftmedia. It involves the work of two undercover journalists from back in 2016.

David Daleidien and Sandra Merritt were undercover citizen journalists who videotaped conversations with Planned Parenthood officials who detailed the illegal selling of aborted baby body parts to the company StemExpress.

The videos were released and of course, Planned Parenthood denied that they were authentic. However, with the aid of a current Democratic candidate for president, they also managed to convince California to charge Daleidien and Merritt with 15 counts of the illegal taping of confidential conversations.

Presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris [D. CA] was then-Attorney General in California and ordered the seizure of the video evidence from Daleidan’s home in 2016. That search and seizure were specifically against California law.

An excellent piece chronicling this case which has now come to court in preliminary hearings in San Francisco was penned by Madeline Osburn on Sept. 11, 2019, at thefederalist.com. Turns out the videos were both legal and authentic.

…former California attorney general Kamala Harris sought to prosecute Daleiden at the behest of her political donors at Planned Parenthood. Even though Daledien’s unreleased footage should have been protected by the California Shield Law, Harris ordered a search warrant against Daleiden in 2016 and a raid of his apartment, seizing his computer, camera equipment, and footage.  Email records show correspondence between Harris’ office and Planned Parenthood officials, orchestrating public responses, filing police reports, and even drafting legislation targeting Daleiden. Harris has received tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions from Planned Parenthood-affiliated entities, so the nature of her behavior is no mystery.

Inset.2.9.14.2019The involvement of Kamala Harris would explain why more hasn’t been forthcoming in the Leftmedia concerning this. That and, of course, one other serious political consideration, the malevolent doctrine of “pro-choice” being a primary icon of the Left.

Otherwise, the Left might see this as a very important free speech case, as Ms. Osburn highlights. However, the video which is now being viewed in court has revealed the most disturbing details yet of Planned Parenthood’s baby body-parts trafficking.

Four days into the hearings, significant and graphic details about StemExpress’ business steadily emerge, such as their supplying of beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.

This means Planned Parenthood was selling the beating hearts and complete heads to StemExpress who would then sell hearts that were beating and fully intact heads to the, um, ‘researchers!’ All of this is illegal, by the way, and undercover evidence of illegal activity is legal to obtain not only in California but under most whistleblower laws nationwide.

The fact that the “pro-choice” enthusiasts believe so fervently in their cause that they would support such butchery for profit and political gains even though it is illegal is pure malevolence befitting the label of demonic. Yet as disturbing as this revelation is, the next story matches, if not exceeds it in reaching new depths of malignant depravity.

Abortions for Sexual “Pleasure”

abortion, pro-choice, pro-lifeIf you are staring at the subtitle in disbelief, I shared similar astonishment when I first heard of this in another article from Sept. 11, 2019, at lifenews.com. Author Micaiah Bilger chronicles the beginnings of a disturbing new trend in a particular part of social media.

 As unimaginably evil as it seems, apparently some couples find a sexual high in purposefully getting pregnant and aborting their unborn babies. Summit News recently uncovered couples discussing the disturbing sexual fetish on Reddit. The comments came from a post where one user explained that their female friend “has a really powerful fetish for breeding.”… “My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion,” the person responded. “Her preferred date to abort is between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation. I enjoy making her pregnant. And I enjoy the time of her pregnancy. She has no menstrual period and she is sexually very active. …“In the last ten years in our relationship we have done seven abortions and my girlfriend is pregnant again with a little girl,” he continued. …A third person praised the abhorrent behavior, writing: “It is good (and rare) to hear of a couple (both man and woman) where both members are into abortion and pregnancy. This is a wonderful and potent example of personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction,” the report continues.

The most surprising aspect of this behavior is not that it actually happened. Something akin to this was always the logical extension of the legal and societal approval of abortion on demand.

One thing that is more surprising and disturbing is this scenario makes abortion a “good” thing because couples can exercise their “personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction.” It’s kinda like being a pair of sex-crazed serial killers without ever having to see your victims or worry about getting caught.

To put it another way, the couple gets a high playing God by sacrificing other lives over and over. Moreover, it’s all for the physical comfort and ‘pleasure’ of the self-made demigods which they can enjoy again each time a child is snuffed out!

What I also found astonishing was the nonchalance the Reddit commentators showed discussing killing the unborn child when they obviously know he or she is really a human child. The one whose girlfriend was now pregnant for the eighth time casually noted that the child now in her womb was a girl.

He makes this comment knowing that in a few weeks, they were going to pay someone to have this little girl killed once she served her purpose for their pleasure. Not only was he okay with that, but he seemed happy that they could just start the cycle all over again!

pro-life, pro-choiceThis is a different level of depravity on display than any I know. It manifests a deeper evil than even the abuse and murder of slaves or the Nazi medical experiments on living human beings.

This practice is a deeper evil for two simple and virtually unprecedented reasons. First of all, there is no force or coercion of any kind toward the mother.

In the vast majority of abortions, coercion plays a large part in the decision to abort. The mother is often pressured by the father, her own parents, other authority figures and peers to “fix” her “mistake,” so she can move on with her life.

However, in this scenario, the father and the mother agree to a long series of abortions, one after the other, for as long as they are together and physically able, for the sake of their own ‘pleasure’!

Secondly, the child in the womb is viewed here as a “sex toy” to be used and later discarded in favor of another human child to use as another “sex toy.”

Not only is the life of the child viewed on a lower level than the life of the parents, but the child herself is regarded as an inhuman non-living thing! Even when deceptive “pro-choice” advocates say that the fetus is a “lump of cells” they at least acknowledge that those are living human cells.

Recently an official from Planned Parenthood said this,

…we will continue to defend the truth: EVERY reason to have an abortion is a valid reason,” said Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

This means that Ms. McNicholas would have no problem with serial abortions as a sexual fetish. Taking what she has said in another light, she could add that according to this view, there is also no good reason to actually give birth to a child and every good reason to destroy that child!

Welcome to the depths of depraved “pro-choice” ideology where what was called light is now darkness and what was good is now called evil. Should this ideology continue unabated, it is a frightening omen for the future of society.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of David Jackmanson’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of American Life League’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Victoria Pickering’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of billy verdin’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Walt Stoneburner’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published at TIL Journal

The Siege Against Christianity, Part 2 [Graphic Video]

In part one of this series, we saw that Christianity as a faith is persecuted throughout the world by hostile governments. The main threats to the existence of the faith there are direct attempts to physically extinguish or directly control Christianity.

As lethal as the persecution can be in nations where Christianity is outlawed, the effectiveness of such violence against the church is almost the reverse of what the governments desire. More and more the old saying the “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” is being fulfilled in modern times.

This is not to justify the terrible suffering of such persecution. It is only to state that many times the strongest and most prolific believers arise from the harshest of circumstances and attract the faithful through their God-given strength.

However, the most successful and insidious attacks against Christianity today come in a less official fashion. From both outside the church and within the fold, the dangers are serious and palpable.

A Dangerous Threat from Outside: Culture vs. Faith

Culture and ChristianityThe most serious outside threat to the Christian faith comes within nations where it is legal to practice, but it is generally despised in the popular culture. This situation is common among Western society today and manifests itself in a variety of ways.

A prominent example is the modern American cultural landscape. The sad fact is that the popular culture in the U.S.A. has for the most part aligned against actual Christian practice in a nation founded upon biblical principles.

Of course, Christianity and popular culture have always existed in a somewhat adversarial relationship. After all, Jesus Christ is the most counter-cultural figure in history.

Yet for most of America’s time as a nation, the culture and Christianity have lived in a society where both elements were freely engaged in without much more than an occasional peaceful, verbal disagreement.

The Civil War and the more-recent Civil Rights struggle are some important exceptions, but these did not make up the longest portions of our history. A cursory examination of society today quickly reveals that such peaceful, public engagement is no longer the norm.

For instance, take the case of one Mr. Jack Phillips. He is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and is now the target of a third lawsuit for discrimination because he refused to bake a cake for a transgender person. The previous lawsuits failed yet of all the bakers in the Denver area, the LGBT community has consistently singled Phillips out because his faith will not permit him to make and decorate cakes with messages promoting deviant sexuality.

Christianity and culturePhillips is but one case of several with similar circumstances. One involved a bakery in Oregon that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, and they ended up closing the doors of the bakery because of the costs.

It isn’t only threats through lawsuits that comprise attacks against Christian faith and practice. The line of harassment and assault has also been crossed, particularly when involving peaceful Christian pro-life demonstrators in public.

One prominent instance occurred in April of this year which involved an elected state official from Pennsylvania. You may have heard or read of this incident.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims (D) broadcast himself harassing a pro-life woman praying outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. Sims repeatedly shoved his phone in the woman’s face and boisterously declared, “Shame on you,” ridiculing the demonstrator for more than eight minutes over her opposition to abortion.

There are numerous other examples of such actions, as well as multiple examples of physical assaults. Two of these that made recent news reports and they involved women as the attackers.

One of the attacks happened on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when a woman attacked and punched a man holding signs at a pro-life display. Another less publicized assault occurred in Roanoke, Virginia when a 15-year-old girl was punched in the face by a woman who tried to steal the girl’s pro-life sign.

particularly brutal example of one assault in January of 2019 is noteworthy to grasp the growing intensity of these kinds of acts. The following video contains graphic violence which may be disturbing.

What began as a peaceful effort to support the pro-life movement quickly changed as Mr. Roberts kept telling this man that ‘Jesus loves you.’ For that proclamation, he was punched repeatedly, without retaliation or attempting to defend himself, and sustained severe injuries as a result.

Targeting the Peaceful and Public Exercise of Christianity

Perhaps some might claim that these aren’t attacks against Christianity as a faith. I would say that though they may not target beliefs, they certainly target those who peacefully exercise their beliefs.

This brings us to another source of the siege against Christianity, the “non-profit” social organizations that defend the mythical “separation of church and state,” which is not in the Constitution of the United States. Organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

This group, in particular, has used the courts to attack any public practice of Christianity from simple prayer, to college sports teams having Chaplains, to WWII memorials with a statue of Jesus. If they can somehow construe a violation of church-state separation, the lawsuits never end, even though they lose most of the time.

Christianity and societyOf course, groups like FFRF and the ACLU would claim that they do not target Christians with their many legal tactics. However, I have not heard of such legal actions from them against most other religions, especially against practitioners of Islam.

In fact, the FFRF admits they do not go after Muslims. Their explanation is that they only act on complaints brought to them by their members, and they don’t get many concerning Muslims.

FFRF accordingly receives very few complaints about Muslim violations. We receive very few complaints about Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan or other minority religious entanglements with government, either.

The ACLU and others operate in the same manner while “defending” religious freedom. Which might bring one to ask, ‘Who are the members that bring complaints, and who are they associated with?’

There is one rather extensive but surprisingly little known organization that it itself in concert with the FFRF and the ACLU in church-state separation stances. It is the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a group this author was very aware of during my 20 -years as a Baptist minister.

The BJCPA is also the first example of what we will examine in part three, the threats to Christianity from within the Church.

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Paul Tomlin’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Blink O’fanaye’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Victoria Pickering’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ryan Somma’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

A Behavioral Experiment: Predicting the Pro-Abortion Left’s Response to Alabama and Company [Video]

Scientist.article.5.23.2019

There has been a number of states who recently passed measures to severely limit and outlaw abortion. These pro-life laws have brought down the wrath of the Leftists who favor abortion at all times and for any reason.

The most controversial of these so far is the new Alabama law criminalizing abortion except for saving the life of the mother. With this and other such activities in mind, I decided to conduct an experiment concerning Leftist’s mindsets on abortion and see if they really were as easy to predict as I surmised.

This experiment was conducted in two steps. First, I drew from my experience in the pro-life movement for 36 years and predicted seven reactions from the Left to this law in advance. Then I compared my predictions to the actual responses represented by 10 articles either giving the Leftist response or pieces talking about multiple responses.

Predicting the Predictable

Leftist, pro-abortion

My predictions took the form of generalizations, as I had no way of knowing in advance the precise wording which was used in the articles. Here are my seven prognostications of Leftist responses to the new pro-life legislation in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned.
2.) Ditto for one or more mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.
3.)There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.
4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.
5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.
6.) Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.
7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned.

I made these predictions at 8:51AM, CDT,  on May 18, 2019. I realize that the reader will have no way of knowing for certain that I didn’t read the article responses ahead of time except for my word that I didn’t do so.

However, besides my assurance, when the results are tabulated it should bolster my claims… I hope. I returned to the experiment for part two on 5/21/2019 and checked on how my predictions panned out.

The results are calculated by number for each source that was cited. Whether or not a particular prediction was actually used more than once in an article was not noted, merely counted as one ‘fulfillment’ of a prediction.

It should be noted that this is far from any kind of scientific survey. I selected 10 examples only, which is insufficient for any definitive conclusion according to statistical science.

I suggest, however, that even this small sample could be expanded over a longer period of time with more responses and the results would vary only slightly. More importantly, even this smattering of evidence reveals the priorities and motivations of the Left when they try to argue for a woman’s ‘right to choose.’

Each example of at least one predicted response is noted in the list below. I read each article and recorded the instances when a predicted Leftist reaction/response occurred and assigning it a number from my list of 7.

218px-Protesting_Illinois_6th_District_Republican_Congressman_Peter_Roskam_Chicago_Illinois_7-26-18_2843_(42951185284)In other words, in the first article, I found at least one example of my number 2 prediction that the new laws would be seen as a threat to Roe v. Wade. This ‘raw data’ if you will, is compiled and analyzed afterward, as will be seen.

1.) From a Reuters story, 5/16/2019: Responses 2, 4, and 6 were shown in this.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-republicans-idUSKCN1SM2KL

2.) From a Washington Post story, 5/15/2019: Responses 2, 4, 5, and 6 occurred here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-2020-candidates-warn-roe-v-wade-at-stake-after-alabama-abortion-bans-passage/2019/05/15/f4f77c7a-7719-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.9f0f3f2842b3

3.) From Townhall.com story about the reactions 5/16/2019: Responses 1, 2, and 4 are used in this example.   https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/05/17/democrats-unhinged-over-alabamas-abortion-bill-n2546477

4.) From a NY Times article on 5/14/2019: This uses predicted responses 2 and 5  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html

5.) From a NY Times ‘op-ed’ with a pro-abortion actress, 5/15/2019: Here we find responses 1, 4, and 5.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/style/busy-philipps-abortion-youknowme.html?  action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

6.) From an article concerning Leftist talking points on “The Federalist” site highlighting social media posts from the pro-abort crowd: Here it can be seen that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are used.  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/many-pro-choice-talking-points-border-propaganda/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=215d30f116-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-215d30f116-84040107

7.)From a National Review article concerning NPR’s rules for discussing abortion: Predicted response number 4 is mentioned.  https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nprs-abortion-rules/

8.)From a May 19, 2019 ‘Intellectual Conservative’ article on leftist reactions: Here predictions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 can be found. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/the-progressives-socialist-anti-science-on-abortion/

9.)From a May 21, 2019, Townhall Article on a pro-abortion rally in D.C.: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are featured. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/05/21/pro-abortionists-held-a-stopthebans-rally-outside-the-supreme-court-heres-what-n2546698?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/22/2019&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b&recip=27779030

10.)From May 21, 2019, on ‘Twitchy.com’ about the pro-abort protest in D.C.: This piece featured responses 1, 3, 4, and 5. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/05/21/wtf-is-she-smoking-dem-rep-jackie-speier-takes-a-page-from-aocs-book-to-argue-for-abortion-rights-video/?utm_source=twtydaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b

Results and Some Surprises

Leftist, Pro-abortionThe results of this ‘experiment’ yielded a mixed bag of the expected and the surprising among the pro-abort Left’s responses.

All of the predicted responses appeared at least once. However, the top four responses are revealing about the mindset of the Leftists as these give vital clues to what they consider most important in the abortion battle.

The highest frequency pro-abort response among those I had predicted was number ‘4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.’  In 9 of the 10 examples, this response was observed.

The next most frequent Leftist response was number ‘2.) …mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.’ This was used in 7 different pieces.

The third most frequent response was recorded 6 times in two different articles. First is prediction ‘1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned’ which is tied with response number ‘5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.’

The other three predicted responses had a large drop in stating what I assumed they would. Only 3 pieces used predicted reaction number ‘3.) There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.’ Two articles used the number 6 prediction that ‘Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.’

The most unexpected result to this author was that only one response used number 7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned. In some cases responses that I should have predicted also appear in these articles I examined.

One of those is the false claim that the Bible and Christianity are supportive of abortion, which was cited in at least one case. This journal has covered that claim in a number of past articles.

Another false claim from the Left that I should have expected was the accusation that these laws are a reflection of ‘racism’ on the part of conservatives. The racism claim did surface, however, I did not record the number of times it appeared.

In The Final Analysis

From this small experiment, we can only make limited assumptions rather than hard conclusions. Yet, these assumptions are not without merit and can be instructive to gain some understanding of the destructive worldview that pro-abort Leftists embrace, in order to rightly oppose its evil design.

Of course, the pro-abort Left could as easily make predictions about the pro-life responses to these new state laws concerning abortion. I would concede that, however, I also would stress that one side is predictable for its object to preserve life, while the other is staunch in a campaign to destroy life.

Leftist, pro-abortion

If the frequency of occurrence indicates importance, the factor the pro-abort Left considers most important is that the humanity of the unborn is denied always, regardless of the truth. The pro-abortion mindset is that above all else and at any cost, it cannot be admitted that the unborn child is a living human being.

The second most important point is that Roe v. Wade must be untouchable. Roe v. Wade is the Left’s symbolic Holy Grail and it is considered a sacred validation of an absolute right.

The problem with that position is the history of bad precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, namely the 1857 “Dred Scott” decision. “Roe” has been compared many times with this infamous SCOTUS ruling which enshrined the institution of slavery as a supposed constitutional ‘right’.

The comparison is from a different era and addresses a different issue, but the point is the same. That point being that just because the SCOTUS makes a ruling does not automatically create a newly-imagined Constitutional right.

The third item on the pro-abortion acolytes’ list of most cherished beliefs is that pro-life advocates wish to regulate and control women’s bodies. Any threat to the full legalization without exception of abortion on demand is a perceived threat to a woman’s bodily autonomy, and therefore must be opposed.

The final important finding is that abortion is portrayed as good for women’s ‘health,’ while any other solution to a pregnancy, including birth, is harmful to women. This fiction is peddled constantly and is easily refuted by many facts, not the least of which is this, as Anna Paprocki writes in the Federalist,

There is no federal abortion reporting requirement. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that the current “patchwork of surveillance efforts” relies on “incomplete” reports from states and that California—estimated to account for 17 percent, or one out of every six abortions in the country—is one of three states that “do not report to the CDC at all.” Guttmacher uses voluntary reporting from abortionists, filtered through its own ideological lens, which fails to fill these gaping holes.

The following video demonstrates the use of these four beliefs employed by the pro-abort Left in a brief debate recently shown on CNN.

The desperation of the Leftist pro-aborts is evident from the blatant denial of reality especially on the part of the woman in the video, as well as the deflection of the host. For example, Cuomo is correct when he says that no states currently allow for the killing of a child already born in an attempted abortion.

However, he also fails to mention that Virginia recently tried to pass such a law which was proposed in January of this year. The law failed to pass in that state, but it is a harbinger of things to come if Leftists have their way.

America must make the choice to embrace either life or death and in doing so embrace either God’s curse or His blessings. The lovers of abortion today are clearly favoring a choice of death without understanding the terrible consequences that will follow.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.  Deuteronomy 30:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Isaiah Mahanga – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by JRBrown – Public Domain
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Charles Edward Miller – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Sam Pullara – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Rebecca W. – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

3 Big Reasons We Voted for and Support President Trump

Trump supporters

Feb. 28, 2019

There is much animus from the Left against conservatives, especially during the Trump era. This again surfaced in recent weeks through violent exchanges such as the assault of a young man at Berkeley last week.

The verbal barrage has been constant and unwavering against Trump voters in the Leftmedia. We have been labeled with various hateful appellants including racist, Nazis, misogynists and so on.

There is an implied question lurking behind these accusations. It is not expressed much directly, but Leftists want to know why anyone, let alone 62 million ‘anyones,’ would vote for Donald Trump.

There is confirmation for this analysis from a Leftist who has been an integral part of the Russian Collusion Delusion to take down Trump. Former FBI agent Peter Strozk wrote in a text to his paramour that Hillary Clinton should win the 2016 election,

100 million to 0.

In other words, Strozk couldn’t see any reason any person would vote for Trump. Here are three big reasons for Strozk and everyone else who may be wondering why Trump voters selected him for the President of the United States.

I cannot speak for all Trump voters, and yes, I am among them. However, I am fairly confident that these reasons were on everyone’s list.

No. 3 – He Wasn’t Hillary

How high this ranked as a reason to vote for Trump will vary. It was number three on my personal list.

Hillary was a Socialist nightmare and by many’s reckoning guilty of two massive crimes. First, her deliberate attempt to cover-up her culpability in the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi was criminal and shameful.

This video from 2014 presents the Benghazi case in great detail.

Unfortunately, neither Hillary or Obama have been made to suffer consequences for this crime.

The second crime she also got away with due to allies within the FBI. This involved Clinton setting up her own private e-mail server illegally and both sending and receiving classified information on that server.

Trump SupportersOnce she was being investigated, she tried to eliminate the evidence by having cell phones destroyed and hard drives ‘wiped’ using Bleachbit. This was after she had been served with a subpoena from Congress to preserve those emails.

Moreover, Hillary was easily the most corrupt candidate ever to run for president. Trump voters were not so naive as to believe the Leftmedia and their Democrat cohorts that Ms. Clinton didn’t excuse and try to cover up the actual sexual assaults of her husband’s past for her shot at power.

We weren’t so blinded by having the ‘first female president’ elected that we would ignore her and Bill’s theft of money from Haitians in need through the Clinton Foundation. Regardless of what his shortcomings were, it is certain that Trump voters thought he was a better choice than Hillary.

No. 2 – He Wasn’t a Politician

The second-ranked reason I believe such large numbers of people voted for Trump was this fact, he wasn’t and had never been a politician. He had spent his entire adult life in the private sector as a successful businessman.

There was, of course, no guarantee that a businessman could do the job of the top political figure in the world. However, Trump’s supporters in 2016 were confident the risk was worth it.

Trump SupportersMy reasoning, in particular, was that America had given the politicians enough chances to do the President’s job as it should be done. In sum, my thoughts were, “We’ve tried it the politician’s way, and they failed, so hit the highway politicians! Time to try another way.”

Moreover, candidate Trump was not simply a dynamic personality. He put forth policies and plans which showed promise to improve many aspects of American life.

Trump addressed long-standing issues such as illegal immigration in ways no politician would, with real, common-sense solutions, like a border wall. His economic proposals were Reaganesque which attracted anyone with knowledge of how that brought prosperity back to the nation after the economic malaise of the Carter administration.

Incidentally, Trump’s promise to have Mexico pay for the wall was off the charts unpolitical behavior. How that would happen was a mystery to most of us, and Trump never said how that would come about. However, we were willing to wait and see if he could somehow pull that off.

No. 1 – He Was Pro-Life and Favored Religious Freedom

This is really two reasons, but these two are inextricably linked. That’s due to the overwhelming majority of those with pro-life sentiments also being Christian.

During the campaign, Trump consistently presented strong pro-life views and continually acknowledged that religious freedom was under siege in America. For example, he promised to appoint pro-life judges and defund Planned Parenthood, as well as defend religious liberty with vigor during his administration.

Trump supportersThose dual positions work together because religious freedom enables the pro-life movement to continue to exist relatively unscathed. Moreover, pro-life activists had seen an increase of pressure against them from previous administrations and were looking for someone in the presidency that would give credence to the movement.

There was a considerable gamble made by anyone who voted for Trump. He was an unknown commodity with no guarantee he would even attempt to keep his promises.

However, the fact that Hillary already had a political voting and advocacy record of anti-life, aka ‘pro-choice’ views meant that voters knew what she would do. Trump voters felt a bit better gambling on him than pulling the lever for someone who was anathema to pro-life people.

What About Trump’s Moral Failings?

Trump’s moral failings were, of course, centered on his sex life and his three marriages.  This issue was difficult for many voters to stomach, and Clinton’s campaign tried to make the most of that fact.

The Left also tried, as they still do, to make outlandish claims that Trump was a lying, racist, misogynist women-hater. These factors made many wrestle with their convictions and reluctantly having to decide between the least of two evils.

I admit to such consternation in my own thoughts. I was also frustrated by the fact that the last time I felt good about voting for a presidential candidate was 1984 to re-elect Ronald Reagan.

However, Trump’s peccadillos were not sufficient for me, and many others, to vote against him, or to vote for a 3rd party candidate to soothe my conscience. It was obvious that if many turned to that alternative, they would only be helping Hillary to the presidency.

The Results Merit Continued Support for Trump

Trump supportersPresident Trump has in the first two years of his administration has delivered a very encouraging performance for conservatives and more importantly, for America. Whatever one may think of his rhetoric, his deeds have put to rest a lot of doubts among his supporters.

This isn’t to say that Trump hasn’t made some mistakes along the way. In hindsight, I believe that he himself would agree that he should have done more to ‘clean house’ of any Obama holdovers on day one.

I think beginning the wall construction on day two would have helped as well. If those things had happened it is unlikely Trump would have the difficulties he presently faces concerning building a border wall on the southern border.

The President is at last beginning to defund Planned Parenthood with his orders concerning Title X funding of PP. This is a good start even though it removes just 60 million from the over 500 million dollars the federal coffers give to the largest abortion provider in the nation.

Trump supporters are ecstatic about his judicial appointments of Constitutional conservatives who are pro-life. Both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at the Supreme Court fit that bill.

Economically, Trump’s policies have delivered in an extraordinary manner which the political class, including former President Obama, said was basically impossible. The extremely low unemployment rates, GDP growth over 3 percent annually, and revival of industry in America are truly spectacular.

Foreign policy has undergone a serious shift from his predecessors. Trump has shown he is unabashedly pro-Israel. For instance, he didn’t just talk about moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, like so many before, he did it!

Trump supportersThis administration has also shown a definite non-political approach to both China, with tariffs on trade, and dealing with North Korea’s nuclear threat. Trump also delivered on a campaign promise to withdraw the U.S. from the disastrous Iran Nuclear deal.

Moreover, Trump has been far tougher on Russia than Obama had ever been with more stringent sanctions and direct support of Ukraine against Russian incursions. No, everything has not gone ‘swimmingly’ concerning Trump making good on promises, but a remarkably high percentage of what he promised has already happened.

It is noteworthy that all of this has been accomplished in the first half of the President’s first term. He merits continued support and needs continual prayer as we head into the 2020 election season.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.  1 Timothy 2:1-2 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources – The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and top image courtesy of Gage Skidmore’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of DonkeyHotey’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of outtacontext’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ondrej Vanecek’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Gage Skidmore’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 5 courtesy of Inter-American Dialogue’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text.

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Left’s War on Science, Part 2: The Abortion Deception [Video]

The Left's War on Science, Part 2: The 'Pro-Choice' Deception

I begin with an apology to my readers. I had planned to present the case against the radical environmentalism of the Left in this article. That is still coming so stay tuned.

However, the desperate attempts by Democrats to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court suggested a change in the order. The vehemence of this opposition has an explanation that is part of the leftist war on science.

The Left fears that Kavanaugh will tip the court against legalized abortion. This drives the hysteria displayed by their minions and politicians.

In that hysteria, the Left pushes against the science of human reproduction and basic biology. They deny facts showing the humanity of the unborn for their devotion to ‘choice.’

The Left’s Utter Devotion to ‘Choice’

The Left is maniacally devoted to the concept of being “pro-choice” on abortion. It is the main motivating factor in the determined, if clownish and disgusting, efforts to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

5933214224_039f6c67df_mSome could dispute that observation by saying that hatred of President Donald Trump is the real energizer of the Left. After all, Trump has been a large focus of leftist hatred since his nomination as a presidential candidate.

However, it should be noted that Kavanaugh is not the first Supreme Court nominee to be so fervently opposed. Both Robert Bork and current Justice Clarence Thomas are prominent examples of leftist character assassination attempts.

The case of Bork ended with his nomination failing to be confirmed and a new popular leftist term, being “Borked” came to notoriety. Justice Thomas survived the false allegations of sexual misconduct to make it to the Court.

However, in all of these cases, a common denominator is a perceived threat to the hallowed ideal of the ‘right to choose’ abortion. The tactics may differ a bit from time to time, but that factor is consistent.

This complete and utter devotion to abortion on demand is based on a false claim. It is the claim that equality among the sexes means that women must be free of bearing children they had not planned or chosen to bear.

Thus pregnancy by the ‘right to choose,’ can be halted per the mother’s wish up to and including the delivery. Since legalization, there have been Supreme Court decisions which upheld it yet also allowed individual states to place some restrictions on abortion practices.

Despite these, there remain places where the child can be killed at nine months old if the mother wishes or consents. As long as the delivery is not fully completed, the federal law allows it, and the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost.

The False ‘Science’ of Roe v. Wade

Supreme CourtIn 1973 the Supreme Court decided the case of “Roe v. Wade” which effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states and at any time of pregnancy. This was easily the worst decision since the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott” case which enshrined a right to own slaves as property.

Dred Scott was later overturned. However, it helped fuel a bloodbath known as the Civil War costing over 600,000 lives before its work was done. Roe itself is not simply ‘bad’ law, it is fantasy law, a made-up tale with no basis in the Constitution.

It was much more a decision of idealistic commitment than it was of interpreting the Constitution. Shamefully, a hundred times more deaths have resulted from Roe than from Dred Scott and the Civil War. Worse, Roe is still in effect 45 years later.

There is a part of the decision which bears scrutiny for scientific purposes. Within the maze that is the actual text of Roe, is this statement.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

The portion which begs attention is the claim that those in the medical community cannot come to a consensus “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge” about the unborn as a human life.

The accuracy of that claim was suspect even in 1973. With the passing of time, more biological knowledge has made the claim obsolete.

The philosophical and theological views on abortion have been partially addressed in previous TIL Journal pieces. A more thorough treatment will follow in future articles.

The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune was a world-renowned geneticist in the late 20th century. He was the discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.

Moreover, he was insistent that the child in the womb was a living human being from the point of conception onward. He despised the fact that some have used his discovery to urge abortion of Down Syndrome babies.

Scientifically, Human Life Begins at Conception

In the years following Roe Dr. Lejeune was called to testify before congressional committees concerning ‘pro-choice’ versus ‘pro-life’ legislation.

In one unusual instance, he was asked to aid in a 1989 divorce proceeding in Tennessee. The question put forth was whether embryos frozen for implantation later should be adjudicated as property or under the rubric of child custody.

…if I can say a word as a geneticist, I would say: An early human being inside this suspended time… cannot be the property of anybody because it’s the only one in the world to have the property of building himself. And I would say that science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

The argument in favor of humanity at conception has only gained plausibility with the continued progress of medical science since 1973. The advent of imaging technology has allowed viewing of the entire human gestation process.

In this particular ultrasound video, the baby is seen moving at just over 8 weeks old

This technology has confirmed that the person in the womb is not ‘potential life,’ as pro-choicers claim, but that it is human and alive as a separate being in the womb.

However, little attention is paid to the consequences of denying this fact. Make no mistake, such denial only produces more evil consequences based on a belief that is both wrong and immoral.

The Baby at ‘War’ with the Mother

One of the consequences of the ‘pro-choice’ philosophy is that the mother should not view the baby within as her blessed offspring. Rather the child should be thought of much like a parasitical invader of the woman’s body.

The woman, it is said, is justified in viewing the baby as waging biological ‘war’ on their bodies. Their self-defense is to respond by declaring war against the invader with abortion.

In their view, any attempt to restrict the use of abortion is also viewed as an act of war. The language used by the Left clearly establishes this.

Inset Image.9.20.2018

screen capture from 2013

This is another case of denying the scientific knowledge of reproduction. Biology testifies that gestation is not an invasion of the female body by a parasite. For one thing, a parasite never feeds on its own species. The host is always a separate species.

Moreover, gestation is natural to reproduction for all mammalian species. Science does not view pregnancy as a parasitical condition in a female chimpanzee. There is no legitimate biological reason to do so for human beings either.

Yet, academic feminism does not accept the science. Here is an excerpt from one such academic found in Harvard magazine.

Eileen McDonagh, a visiting scholar at Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center, seeks to rewrite the “feminine” self-sacrificing language of pregnancy and replace it with “masculine” terms of self-defense in an effort both to strengthen a woman’s right to abortion and to win universal government funding for the procedure. In her new book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock (Oxford), McDonagh argues that doctors who perform abortions should be paid by taxpayers to stop unwanted fetuses from “kidnapping” women’s bodies, just as the government pays police officers to prevent rapists from invading the bodies of women.

Per this feminist scholars’ suggestion, this twisted view is carried to the point that it should be legally recognized and paid for regardless of anyone else’s views. In fact, this is actually played out via Planned Parenthood which taxpayers fund with hundreds of millions of dollars whether the taxpayer likes it or not.

Yes, the conditions of receiving that amount of funding include the promise that PP will not use those funds for abortion. But money is fungible and funds allocated for one project easily get moved to other priorities in large organizations.

The Push for Infanticide

1444740980_c58171d36d_mWhen scientific facts are denied the consequences which result can be terribly destructive. The tens of millions of aborted children and devastated mothers since Roe have shown that.

Yet the evil continues to grow and foster acceptance of the grossest immoralities. It has even begun to produce a nightmarish scenario where the killing of children after birth is advocated and sometimes carried out.

If it is true that abortion is justified because of the child in the womb’s dependency, the same logic would allow the disposal of a child out of the womb until a certain age… People like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer use this to propose a waiting period of 30 days before considering a baby a human person.
“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.”

Be assured that Singer is not the only person who has promoted this. Moreover, he is not the only academic to push for the infanticide particularly of the disabled.

I have written previously on the subject of killing the disabled, unborn and born, and the movement in Europe to spread the heinous practice. However, the disabled infant is only a stepping stone for infanticide supporters.

The prize these medical ‘ethicists’ seek is the legalization and normalization of infanticide worldwide. Their arguments for this boil down to a couple of plainly understood reasons.

One reason employs utilitarianism to justify such killing. The same reasoning that relegates the baby in the womb to non-personhood, is applied to the infant after birth.

For example, according to influential medical publications, infants should not be regarded as human persons because they lack the qualifications to perceive life. Since the infant is not self-aware, for instance, he or she is not really a human person, and killing the born infant is acceptable.

The second reason involves economic concerns. It is extremely expensive to care for the disabled, and that cost grows as the disabled person grows. This rationale has been applied in many countries in Europe who actively seek to legalize some form of infanticide.

For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:35-36 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of thecrazyfilmgirl’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Angela’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Matt Wade’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of furiousjethro’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Antonio Pavon’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published at TIL Journal