N.O.W. LIFE BEGINS BEFORE BIRTH, N.O.W. IT DOESN’T?

Patricia Ireland, former head of National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), went on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night to discuss abortion in light of Tiller’s murder. O’Reilly started by asking her point blank if she’d come to a conclusion about when life begins. Her answer may surprise you.

“I think upon conception there is life.”

Not surprisingly, she promptly followed this up with, “but that’s the wrong question.”

Is it? Actually, it’s precisely the right question. And if by conception you mean when a human sperm penetrates a human oocyte and a distinct and complete individual person is created, then why are you still in favor of abortion on demand?
Her response is part of an alarming new trend whereby abortion advocates admit to the undeniable fact human being's life begins at the beginning of their biological development, yet remain unflinching in their abortion support. In doing this they are exposing an even more disturbing side of their worldview - that it makes no difference if we know when a human being's life begins, abortion is an absolute, unwavering right.

The pro-life fight used to be predominately a fight against the erroneous ideology that we don’t know or aren’t sure when human life begins. In fact, one Supreme Court justice wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision that, “If th[e] suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe v. Wade], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

However, now that even abortion advocates are admitting that a human being's life begins before birth, this big “if” of the Roe decision should result in its “collapse” and reversal. In other words, now that we all agree human life begins before birth, Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Right, Patricia?
Later in the interview, O’Reilly challenged her “upon conception there is life” statement by asking how she justifies aborting a human person. At this, Ireland changed her wording and referred to a pre-born person as “potential life”. Well, which one is it? Life or potential life?
“Fetuses don’t grow inside Petri dishes,” she brilliantly added. Her point being: the value of a human being in the womb is diminished simply because they grow inside of women.

Ireland then went on to make two false statements: 1. That women only get late-term abortions when their life is at risk, like if the "fetus" is dead and needs to be removed. (Excuse me, but last time I checked it’s not an abortion if the child is already dead.), and 2. Abortion is limited in the 2ndand 3rd trimester to only permit an abortion if there’s an extreme threat to the health or life of the mother.
Thankfully, O’Reilly knows his facts and pointed out that “health” is so broadly defined that it can include a migraine headache or stress at being pregnant.
Then, when O’Reilly gave proof that Tiller performed late-term abortions on babies for any reason, including so a girl could go to a concert, Ireland huffed and puffed and said it was demeaning to women to say such a thing.

Although Ireland did a good enough job on her own making the pro-abortion position look bad, we must continue to dismantle the abortion advocates faulty logic and contradictory assertions until all human persons are given equal protection under the law.

Deadly Honesty

Deadly Honesty: A Response to RH Reality Check....

By Kortney Blythe

For those of you who don’t know, RHRealityCheck.org is a radical pro-abortion web site mostly consisting of blogs/rants about abortion. They put out a weekly podcast, which mostly just attacks pro-lifers and spouts misinformation.

Now that I’m able to keep up with the happenings in the pro-death camp, I half-enjoy, half-despise reading their articles. On the one hand, it keeps me abreast of what the extremists are saying, but on the other hand, it is infuriating when they lie AND when they tell the truth.

.. ..Case in point: Two articles recently posted on the web site accurately reported things said by people on both sides of the debate. Ironically, their honesty revealed an even darker side of the pro-death camp.

The first article, written by user name “cpc_watcher,” discussed former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The author of this blog called Huckabee “a seasoned expert” in arguing for the pro-life side and worried because she didn’t think Stewart was a worthy opponent. Interesting. Are you worried that someone unschooled in “choice” rhetoric will reveal your weak justification for child killing? After spouting a few ad hominem (personal) attacks against Huckabee, the author admits that Huckabee “invoked biology to make his point.” Here’s his quote:

I believe life begins at conception, when 23 chromosomes from a male and 23 from a female create a unique DNA schedule that has never existed before, has an imprint that is unlike any that has ever been… Biologically and scientifically, it is irrefutable that that’s when life begins. Now, some would argue is it human life? But what else can it be? It’s not a dolphin; it’s not a stalk of broccoli. I mean it has to be human life because of the cellular structure…”

She finds this scientific response ironic because, in her mind, Huckabee is anti-medical science. How does she respond to his biological argument? “I was just short of yelling at my iPod, screaming at Stewart to refute his so-called ‘scientific facts’ right there on their air.” Now, make up your mind, cpc_watcher. Either he’s using scientific facts or he’s not. If not, then please correct him using logic, not emotions.

Abortion advocates depend on emotional appeals, misinformation and personal jabs to make their case. While conceding that Huckabee made “some very powerful… arguments against abortion,” that ellipsis (…) in the quote is where the author claims these arguments are inaccurate.

Her defense for this claim is that ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) defines pregnancy as beginning only after implantation is complete, not at the actual biological beginning of a person, as Huckabee asserts. Unfortunately, she’s telling the truth. This fact is why doctors can legally deny that chemical birth control and emergency contraception can end the life of a child. In 1965, ACOG officially changed the definition of pregnancy, opening the door to a host of misinformation that, to this day, deceives well-meaning people into comfortably ingesting fatal chemicals.

The writer makes a few other ridiculous statements, such as “that a zygote is a human life because it will not turn into anything is especially frustrating… [and] full of holes; should we be treating Huckabee like a corpse? Because given enough time and biological process, he’s not likely to turn into anything else.” WHAT?! No one is claiming that a HUMAN zygote should have his/her personhood recognized because s/he will turn into a human, but because s/he already IS!

You may recall that many abortion supporters say that “no one likes abortion” and “everyone” wants to “reduce the number of abortions” because it’s an ugly procedure. Not so, says cpc_watcher. The only reason they really want to reduce abortion is because it’s “an expensive, no-fun medical procedure, something we should avoid not because the procedure is bad or wrong, but because prevention is, well, easier.”

This leads me to the second article. This one was written by Heather Corinna, a sex education activist who has had an abortion and worked in an abortion mill. Refreshingly, but also frighteningly, she writes about the common things “pro-choice” people say to abortion opponents, in an attempt to find common ground, that just aren’t true. As an activist and pro-life educator, I’ve heard these statements countless times from defenders of abortion. Keep in mind the myth and the response are both coming from a pro-abortion blogger. This is not an extensive list.

Myth #1: No woman wants to have an abortion.
Corinna: “Many women, if not most, who choose abortion want to have one.”

She admits that many women feel pressure from those around them to make certain decisions regarding pregnancy. But, she proclaims, coerced abortions are “unacceptable.” Why, then, do abortion advocates fight, with voracious ferocity, laws that would regulate coercion?

Myth #2: No woman has an abortion casually.
Corinna: “Some women DO have abortions in a way you or I might call or see as casual. For some women, having an abortion is not a big deal, is not upsetting, is not something she feels carries a lot of weight for her.”

This myth is one I heard quite frequently while doing activism on college campuses. Student A would snidely say myth #2. Then, a few minutes later a female college student, Student B, would pass by and say something to the effect of, “I had an abortion and I don’t regret it at all. I’m glad I did it.” Obviously, this response contradicts what student A just said. So, at least Corinna is honest. What’s sad is that any woman would let her precious child be ripped limb from limb and feel ambiguous or nonchalant about it. Only the seared conscience of a nation could result in women not mourning for their dead children.

Myth #3: If everyone had access to birth control and all the methods we had were 100% effective, all pregnancies would be wanted and we would have no abortions.
Corinna: “Many women would still want and need abortion.”

This myth is along the same lines of the “you should be giving out condoms if you really want to end abortion” mentality. Thank you, Corinna, for pointing out that no matter how much birth control is out there, selfish people will still demand a “backup plan" in case they change their mind about wanting a child. Our society has become so self-centered that the very life of a child is given or taken at will.

Myth #4: Abortion is a bloody, ugly, brutal, painful procedure.
Corinna: “Any surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort… I have yet to see an abortion procedure I’d describe as brutal or violent.”

Corinna, you’re missing the point! You’re comparing necessary, ethical, lifesaving surgeries to the unethical, life-ending surgery of abortion. The blood involved in a lifesaving surgical procedure is your own blood, and you’re still alive when the surgery is over. The blood you saw when you worked in a mill was the blood of a separate person, and this person was dead after the surgery! The pain in an ethical surgery is only temporary and fades with time. Pain after an abortion is physical, psychological and spiritual, and it never goes away.

Saying you’ve never seen a brutal or violent abortion is like slave owners who said African Americans were happy being slaves. From the oppressor’s perspective, everything is copacetic. But if you look at it through the eyes of the victims, in this case the preborn children, it is nothing but brutal and violent. Like those who fought to outlaw slavery, we must be abortion abolitionists and keeping fighting until abortion is no more and personhood is legally recognized for all.

Did The Founding Fathers Sin By Founding America?

I'd like your thoughts on this. I was reading Romans 13 recently and this exact thought popped into my head. ("Was the Revolutionary War justified biblically?") Then I open my e-mail and there's an article from Worldview Weekend about it. Brannon Howse makes a compelling argument that it was, but I know John MacArthur is a respected evangelical pastor and author. The more I think about it, I agree with Howse. I think Civil Disobedience is justified when all other avenues to change a sinful government have been exhausted.

What do YOU think?

By Brannon Howse

Liberals love it when conservatives fight among themselves - especially when the battle centers around whether or not America is truly based on a Biblical foundation and God's providential work. In case you're blissfully ignorant about the controversy, let me explain.

Nationally known pastor John MacArthur has actually written that the founding of America was a sin:

Over the past several centuries, people have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That's why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are divinely endowed rights.

Therefore those believers say such rights are part of a Christian worldview, worth attaining and defending at all cost including military insurrection at times. But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.[1]

When you combine a lack of knowledge about the American Revolution with a false interpretation of Romans 13, you end up with good conservative Christians adding to the misinformation about our Founders and believing that America was not established under God but by an un-Christian rebellion. My friend and regular Worldview Weekend speaker David Barton has written a paper entitled "Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?" in which he notes:

The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy. This passage does not mean they had to submit to every civil law. Note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the "Faith Hall of Fame" as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience�including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.�

If the Founding Fathers had removed themselves from underneath the authority of Great Britain because they were choosing anarchy over an established government, then that would be a violation of Romans 13. Although Romans 13 is not an endorsement of every government, it is a description of what God says is the proper role of civil government.[2]

In Scripture, God initiates several realms of authority in human governance: family, church, and state. These reflect the normal pattern of social interaction, and civilizations throughout history have reproduced these in some form. Simply because the presence of these institutions is normative, however, we should not expect every instance of them to be acceptable.

Fathers are the God-ordained head of the family, but those who abuse their children and wives deserve to be removed from their positions of authority. Few people disagree that a pastor or elder should be removed from leadership in the church - his God-ordained position of authority - if the leader is guilty of grave moral and ethical failures. And, as with church and family rule, God does not necessarily endorse every leader or every civil government that comes along.

For 11 years, our Founders petitioned the King of Great Britain to cease his unlawful, unbiblical actions against the colonials. Although the monarch ignored their grievances, they remained under his authority until he sent 25,000 troops into the colonies for the purpose of seizing property, invading homes, and imprisoning people without trials. The king's actions violated his own British common law, the English Bill of Rights, and the centuries-old Magna Carta.

Once King George III started down the path of violent suppression, the Founders announced their intent to separate from Great Britain. They wrote at length that they were involved in self-defense, which they rightly believed was Biblically acceptable. British troops fired the first shot in every confrontation leading up to the Revolutionary War - the Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston in 1774, and the Lexington and Concord engagements of 1775.

Unless you are a thoroughgoing pacifist, there is no basis for saying the Founders sinned in defending themselves against King George's troops and their terrorist tactics against the colonists. The Founders' fight was not a "military insurrection." Our early leaders took seriously their standing before God and believed He could bless a war of defense but not a war of offense. They fought to protect their own lives and those of their family and friends.

Many Christians get queasy over the subject of "civil disobedience" and invoke Romans 13 to avoid the responsibility of standing up to a deviant government. While I agree it is crucial that Christians pursue civil disobedience only when obeying government requires us to disobey God, Scripture offers clear direction on when such action is acceptable.

The Founding Fathers did not violate New Testament principles when they instituted American independence, and it is critical that we close ranks on this fundamental issue. Our nation was founded under God's guiding hand - not in spite of it. Whether or not we continue in the godly heritage of the first Americans is a vital concern, but it's one that should be debated between "us" and "them", not between "us" and "us."

Pro-lifers Protest Abortionist's House

Click to read story...This newspaper by the way is VERY bias. Oh and I know the pro-lifers who the paper is blaming for this protest, and they didn't do it...not that there would be any thing wrong with it :)
azdailysun.com - Flagstaff and Northern Arizona News, Photos, Obituary, Calendar Events, Classifieds, and Directory

Review of Prince Caspian

"For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory." - Deuteronomy 20:4

Thank God for Douglas Gresham and (the covertly Christian) Walden Media.

For the second time, Gresham, step-son of C.S. Lewis and co-producer of both Narnia movies, succeeded in maintaining the integrity of his Father's work by avoiding the Hollywood-prone watering down of Christian messages.

Compared to the well-developed dramatic structure (yes, I busted out the middle school literature terms) of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (LWW), Prince Caspian was lacking in the "Exposition", aka background information, and spent lots of time in the "Rising Action" and "Climax". However, it kept me entertained with breath-taking cinematography, loads of action-packed scenes, witty dialogue and an oozing of undeniably Christian messages.

The spiritual themes were so powerful I actually took notes on my cell phone. The only other time I've done that is while watching two movies which eerily paralleled the pro-life movement (The Island and Amazing Grace).

As in LWW, Lucy's child-like faith (Matt 18:2-6, Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17) results in a conflict between the four royal siblings when she claims that she sees Aslan and He wants them to take a different, seemingly dangerous, path. Again they doubt her and go with their own preferences, only to be proven wrong.

Later, she urges them to wait for Aslan before attacking their enemies (Psalm 33:20) and when they ignore the advice, her response gave me chills. Attempting to humble her ambitious brother and with a deep expression of wisdom, she looks at her brother and asks, "Who really defeated the White Witch?"

Depending on his own strength, High King Peter charges in prematurely, losing many brave men in the first battle. After trying to blame the defeat on Prince Caspian, he realizes the real problem: they have not called on Aslan.

During the intense, epic battle scenes, reminiscent of both Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Old Testament, Isaiah 40:30-31 kept repeating in my mind. "Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint."

Finally, Lucy is sent to appeal to Aslan for help, and when he arrives, the Narnians have a parting-of-the-red-sea victory; demonstrating, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31b).

Also noteworthy were the themes of mercy, vengeance is the Lord's (Romans 12:19), and "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18).

One could argue that LWW was overall a better film. However, Prince Caspian still proved a compelling depiction of the battle raging in heavenly realms and contained plenty of humor, fighting and even romance to satisfy most people.

Interestingly, at the start of the film, out of fear, the Telmarines (the men who conquered Narnia) had turned Aslan/Narnia into a myth like many today have done with Christianity.

"I am Prince Caspian"

That line in the previews always brings a smirk to my face. Just the way he says it so dramatic and serious makes me laugh.

Anyhow, tonight at 12:01 am six of us Survivors will be seeing The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. I'm expecting great things from the second installment of C.S. Lewis' classic series of children's novels.

There have already been gospel tracks made about the movie, which I plan to give out at the theater (see picture on left).

We're not seeing the movie at just any ole theater either. Disney's El Capitan Theater decorates the auditorium with the setting of the movie using real props from the movie. For The Lion the Witch & The Wardrobe they turned the theater into a forest and poured snow on the audience before the movie started. For Prince Caspian, I'm assuming it will be a battlefield.

Every day I thank God that I'm able to be a missionary for Him, save babies and live in an area of the U.S. that desperately needs the Gospel. This area also happens to have some of the most breath-taking beaches, mountains and entertainment hubs, which my team and I are able to enjoy as a respite from fighting the moral decay of civilization.

I will write more after I see the movie.

Apes, Babies and Overpopulation

Lately I've been on a documentary kick, which in turn has reignited my passion for apologetics (beyond the realm of pro-life and basic defending of the existence of truth, since I deal with that everyday).

First, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which inspired me to research the Old Earth vs. New Earth Creationism debate. As a result, I will be reading Creation as Science, given and recommended to me by Gabriel Koulikov.

The Business of Being Born was next on my list of eye-opening movies. "Follow the money", my college journalism teacher pounded into my head. And like every other industry in the world, giving birth has lost its sacredness and become all about the money. Hospitals simply want to empty the bed for the next about-to-pop pregnant woman. Gone is the empowering miracle of natural childbirth.

Instead of being a pleasant and exciting surprise, women now plan the date of delivery and do voluntary C-sections, followed by plastic surgery to return their bodies to Hollywood "hot". Pregnancy on television and in movies is portrayed as a very painful and terrifying experience - no wonder girls are so prone to choose abortion instead of adoption.

Interestingly enough, the drugs given to women to first induce labor and then dull the pain actually increase the overall painfulness to the woman. Being Born showed a woman giving birth in a small pool inside her living room with very little pain and no drugs, and it was beautiful.

Every woman who is with child or plans on being a mother should watch this film before giving birth. ***Warning: The female body is not censored during delivery. Breasts and graphic birthing is depicted.***

Tonight I watched Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family. If you've ever heard the myth that we're overpopulated and wondered about the truth, watch this movie. It will scare you while at the same time make you want to reproduce as soon as possible (within marriage, of course).

The main gist: As a country becomes more affluent, people have less children. We are facing a major economic crisis as the "baby boomers" grow old - there are not enough young people entering the workforce to pay for their social security or health care.

A country needs 2.1 average children per woman in order to just replace itself and sustain its economy. Most developed countries (especially in Europe, North America, Asia) have a 1.3 replacement rate.

What this means for our future is some big problems. We're already seeing these problems in America. Countries like Russia and Sweden are offering major financial incentives to couples who have children in order to try and avoid major disaster. But it's not working.

Why? Because the world has become obsessed with self-indulgence. As divorce rates skyrocket, co-habitation becomes norm and sex is no longer seen as a means to reproduction, our society is crumbling.

A secular scientist in the film commented that the groups of people who still value children are the religious and the poor (in his opinion, those less equipped to raise more children). For a Darwinian, he said, this is catastrophic.

Watch the film. You won't regret it. And you'll gain much insight into just how devastating the sexual revolution has been on the world. May God have mercy on us.