I wrote this little story to illustrate the essentials of the Born Alive issue that surround Barack Obama.
Once upon a time there was a successful hit-man, who occasionally blundered during his killing. One day the hit-man was hired to terminate an innocent Bystander, because Bystander’s presence and long term relationship was not desired, and it was perfectly legal for hit men to kill innocent human beings like Bystander when they were hidden.
So the hit-man executed his killing technique, but in the process, Bystander did not die, but he was flushed out into the open. The Big Law of the Land said innocents in the open were to be protected.
The hit-man was now in a quandary: If the hit-man didn’t kill Bystander he’d be taken out by his client because he didn’t fulfill his Contract. On the other hand, now that Bystander was flushed into the open, the hit-man was to care for and tend to Bystander, so Bystander would be alive for a long, long time. What to do? Would the hit-man follow the law or save his own skin (and get paid and remain at the top of his game)?
Those who saw the innocent Bystander dying wanted to call for help, but were fearful of the hit-man, who told them to shut up. Bystander, now an out-in-the-open innocent, was suffocated by the hit-man, a clear violation of the Big Law of the Land.
Jill the Nurse did not shut up, and she told others that hit-men weren’t abiding by the Big Law, because the hit-men’s killing technique included flushing innocents out into the open, where it was easier for them to kill their targets.
Soon defenders of the Big Law stepped up to say hit-men couldn’t finish their job, after they had flushed their targets into the open. A law was added to the Big Law of the Land saying you must aid innocents who were flushed, but the law didn’t stop the flushing of innocents into the open by the Hit-Men. The new law needed local Teeth.
Baracko, a champion for Hit-Men International, stepped up to defend the Hit-men when local Teeth legislation was presented. That legislation said Hit-men must call in other specialists who must work hard to keep the hit-man’s target alive.
Baracko, in his contorted, but oh-so mesmerizing manner, wove a magical spell of “Words” to defend the hit-men, claiming that their honor and integrity must not be impugned, because, after all, they were Professionals™. He claimed that when killing, if innocents (like Bystander) were flushed into the open, that the hit-men would do the Right Thing®, meaning they would follow the law, and instead of killing their targets would suddenly begin to keep them alive at all costs.
And so the local legislators, many being close and dear friends of the hit-men, bought Baracko’s spell (using power money provided by Hit-Men International.) So they ignored the Big Law of the Land because it had no local Teeth and hit-men continued to kill innocent bystanders by flushing them into the open, then dispatching them in new and novel ways, including throwing them in black garbage bags with bleach then placing the bags out into the hot midday sun.
Over the course of time, and as a reward for his loyalty, Hit-Men International helped put Baracko, a renowned scholar of the Big Law of the Land, into the office of the Big Cheese. Proving that the Big Law of the Land can be ignored when lots of Money and Power can be obtained.
In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:
Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.
Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.
All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.
BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”
Who receives the benefits of the violence?
After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?
Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.
Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.
Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.
Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.
So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.
For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.
Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.
So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.
“Abortion is okay because the fetus is not a person.”
Non-personhood arguments play on Level of Development. They deny the intrinsic nature of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. They justify abortion by asserting a “person” is not present at the time of an abortion by defining what it means to be a person.
BioSLED Response: “Can you prove to me you are a person without using your physical body in any way?” The other person won’t be able to.
Reasoning: Self-awareness doesn’t require communicating your own awareness to others. Yet body presence indicates you exist – your body is your means of communication. A test for intangible personhood which ignores the human body is an invalid test, because no natural human being can pass it.
Science tells us the pre-born are human beings, based on numerous established facts, such as embryological development, uniqueness of DNA and that life comes from life – the Law of Biogenesis. After amphimixis humans exist – they have human flesh and blood. Given a proper environment and nourishment they thrive.
Demanding the pre-born communicate at an advanced level of development is unfair because it smuggles in the idea that communication only occurs according to a presumed definition provided by the abortion-choicer.
The abortion-choicer imposes a conditional test of self-awareness they cannot pass, and assumes their own level of development is sufficient. So abortion-choicers discriminate against the pre-born due to their level of development, but use their own level of development as a definition of their humanity.
Placing the abortion-choicer back at the same level of development as the pre-born should alter their perspective, if they are intellectually honest, on what it means to be a human person.
For the Philosophers: Ontological vs Epistemilogical Statements
Ontological thoughts have to do with the metaphysical – existence/being/nature. Epistemological has to do with knowing – beliefs, opinions etc. We shouldn’t confuse these terms or switch their meanings. Descartes, no matter how much thinking he did, did not exist due to his thinking. He existed prior to his conscious thoughts and that existence was a pre-requisite for his ability to communicate his beliefs. “I think, therefore I am” is putting Decartes before the horse.
If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!
On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. [Zech 12:3 NIV]
Do you care about Israel? Are you friend or foe?
What about God’s commandment to bless and not curse Israel?
Recently I came across four fascinating pieces I feel compelled to share.
Sandi Shoshani is doing some amazing work in changing lives and saving lives throughout Israel. As Director of Be’ad Chaim (which means Pro Life in Hebrew) – a pregnancy resource center network in Israel, she has a perspective on abortion and it’s impact on world politics you seriously need to consider.
Anyone who honestly says abortion can’t hurt population demographics and the balance of the nations should think twice.
In 2008 – Israel had 140,000 live births and somewhere between 40,000 – 50,000 abortions. Since their inception, Israel has collectively aborted 2 million when their population is only 7 million total today. Had they not aborted their children, Israel would not have a problem facing the challenges of a growing Palestinian population. Abortion matters in the life and death struggles of nations.
Considering that point, take a look at what Michael B. Oren at Commentary Magazine offers regarding the very existence of the modern Jewish state of Israel (or it’s potential demise) with Seven Existential Threats.
And realizing that Israel is not alone in this struggle, Mark Steyn has an excellent article at Commentary Magazine where things are going with radical Islam, how demographics figure into the weakening of Europe and the growing rise of Islam.
Lastly – take a look at this:
Abortion has consequences that reach beyond the personal, impacting the nations.
When calling out the Pope for his trespasses – will Israel admit their own auto-genocide trespass?
Found a great comment on Yourish.com from David Foster that made so much sense. Progressives (liberals) view morals as properties of objects and not people. So for instance, nuclear weapons are immoral, but not people who seek to use them. Guns are immoral, but not people who shoot others. Bombs are evil, but not those who employ them.
Fascinating theory.
How would this apply to abortion?
The answer is obvious, but it took me a moment, because I don’t even think like that.
The immoral “object” is the baby.
Wow. I’d love to test this out with a survey.
What do you think – does it fit real-world observations?
I’ll share what I wrote in an email to some friends upon seeing the initial Planned Parenthood promo letter and then reflecting upon it:
Like the Miss USA pageant, which lacked ratings and national exposure, but sure found a lot of free press with a controversy, I’m getting the feeling both Judy Blume and PPA needed a quick pick-me up in the publicity dept. and felt controversy would deliver it.
Upon reflection it seems that way.
“Forever” appears to be a publicity piece written as a story to be sold to promote “family planning clinics” and the pill right after the Roe opinion came out. My guess is, if the pro-life community makes a big deal over PPA’s fundraiser, we’ll be inadvertently promoting Blume’s trash to a new audience who will want to know why the books are so bad. Clever marketing tactic. (or do I overrate the pro-life influence?)
I’ve been noticing this parasitic pattern ever since I heard a Canadian band called Mes Aieux sing a song called “Degeneration” It was a big hit in Canada, and a lot of pro-life people purchased the song and album. The band waited and waited until the song played out and started going down in the charts until they corrected the pro-life advocacy of the song. Turns out the band was distinctly pro-abortion. They got the money, and despite the crystal clear implications of the lyrics, denied it had a pro-life message. They gained at the expense of the generous Canadian pro-lifers.
The key point – the devil will lie to gain the power of this world – money. I’d like to learn how to spot parasitic promos and avoid giving them any traction whatsoever.
We need to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
It now appears Cecile Richards is simply stirring the cauldron and hoping to inflame enough people to generate tons of donations.
John 15:1-8 is a troubling passage; many find the references to vines, branches and fruitfulness confusing and the implications frightful. Recently our pastor, Dave Gadoury, shared the key to understanding this passage, which requires knowing how grapes grow and vines are pruned.
Here’s the first four verses in the NIV:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
Since Y’shua is obedient to the Father, those who do God’s will through Y’shua will be productive. God trains the vine and prunes the branches.
Verse 2 is problematic. If you believe the NIV (and most commentary) pruned branches are “cut-off”, implying unfruitful believers are lopped off, later to be tossed into the fire.
So does no fruit in verse 2 mean no salvation? My pastor didn’t think so and I agree.
The Greek keyword for “cut-off” is (k149) airo (ah’-ee-ro) – take-up or take away. The most common use is to take up, lift up, even raise up. (knnn indicates Kohlenberger dictionary numbering while Snnn indicates Strong’s numbers.)
As a contrast, (k554) apairo combines (k608) ap -out of + (k149) airo – take up. Clearly, if God removed unfruitful believers, the better Greek word apairo would have been used. Also the Greek word (S1571) ekkathairo (ek-kath-ah’-ee-ro) found in 1 Corinthians 5:7 referring to purging old leaven would have indicated removal of unwanted branches. Ekkathairo literally means: take away out of, to purify. It means removal of impurities. Notice it includes the word airo. The word used in verse 2 regarding the fruitful branches God prunes is kathairo, which implies purity, but lacks the “ek” prefix (”out of” or “away from”).
So unfruitful believers are taken up, while fruitful believers are taken up and purified. Would God remove someone who was in Christ?
Verse 3 holds the key, but the meaning of airo must be understood within the context of grape vine pruning.
When studying Scripture it’s important to avoid getting micro-focused on words or specific verses but to also consider where dialog and events occur because the environment may establish an important context for the verse.
In John 14:31 Y’shua says “Come now; let us leave”, meaning the group is departing the Upper Room where the Pesach Seder was held. However, the journey is not finished until we read John 18:1:
When he had finished praying, Y’shua left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.
Chapters 15, 16 and 17 contain an almost continuous sequence of discussion and prayer by Y’shua. But if we believe John 14:31, this occurred neither in the Upper Room or in Gethsemane. The Synoptic gospels leave out this detail. It’s unlikely Y’shua would say, “Come now; let us leave”, then speak and pray for another 20 minutes or so in the Upper Room.
For what it’s worth, I believe on their journey to Gethsemane the group stopped in a vineyard. In ancient Jerusalem vineyards would have been everywhere, including the house garden where the Seder was held. A vineyard would allow Y’shua to teach direct object lessons, reinforcing what he taught during the Seder, while also creating a memorable context for events unfolding in the coming hours. He could point directly at the vines while speaking.
Like many kinds of fruit trees, new shoots from old growth vines do not produce fruit the first year. The cane has to winter-over, then be pruned the next season so it will produce fruit. The cane should be kept off the soil though, because if covered, it will root and grow on it’s own, drawing nourishment from the soil instead of the vine. So new canes are lifted and tied up. They receive more sunlight which stimulates greater growth.
In the second year, right around Pesach, while vines are still dormant, the gardener will look for signs of vitality then prunes off about 85-90% of the top of each cane – he doesn’t take the whole branch! This not only encourages growth, but also produces fruit. As for those branches that were fruitful the prior season, they need to be cut back to what’s called renewal buds. Season after season canes are cut back to renewal buds which stem higher on the branch while the branch below grows thick and woody. So pruning strengthens the branch base while stimulating production of fruit. You can see this branch structure and fruit in the photo above. The thick portion down the bottom is the vine’s arm. The branch is the woody vertical part and the cane is the green branch with the fruit hanging off.
Careful tending and pruning of old established grape vines is critical to the quantity and quality of the wine produced.
Until Roman occupation, the Israelites let their grapevines sprawl on the ground in tangled masses. Rome’s success in wine production came from using trellises to lift the canes and fruit off the ground, keeping them from problems such as fungus, pooling water and overcrowded branches.
Given the overall context of the passage, it’s possible Y’shua was preparing the disciples for their own deaths – as branches from the vine hoisted up onto Roman trellises (crosses) to yield fruit for his kingdom, and to be cut off from life, to yield more fruit season after season. All of disciples present expect John died as martyrs. They were all quite fruitful for God. And it turns out 12 branches per vine is considered optimal for fruit production!
Let’s return to verse 3 where Y’shua makes it clear he’s expecting the disciples to be fruitful:
3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
The disciples have been pruned because the keyword used is (k2754) katharos – clean pure, clear of responsibility, innocent, and they are in the vine. The non-productive part of their lives has been removed.
Most people forget that as Jesus is speaking these words, Judas is not present. He’s away arranging the betrayal. So Judas is not included in all the promises and prayers since John 13:30. Remaining true to Christ is not a matter of producing fruit but being willfully obedient as a sign of your unconditional love. This becomes even more clear when we consider verse 4:
4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
John, as the only disciple who knew Judas was betraying Christ that night [John 13:26], would be sensitive to the imagery conveyed, and the points Jesus was making in the vineyard. Here’s the critical piece – sometimes branches emerge from the root and threaten the productivity of the whole vine. They are not “in” the vine, and will not be fruitful. Like Judas, some may mistakenly reject Y’shua’s claim of Messiahship to return to their “roots”, religious or otherwise, missing Y’shua’s point that the vine is critical to fruitfulness. Verses 5-6 emphasizes this:
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Those who aren’t in Christ, but want to look like Christ – be the vine, when they are merely branches. Like Judas, they aren’t fruitful for the Kingdom of God. They wither the life out of the kingdom, and so are pruned off and discarded into the fire. But if you are in Christ, look at the promise he makes if you remain faithful and true:
7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.
8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
God is the Master Gardener, he wants the abundant fruit of our lives for His glory. It may take some yearly painful pruning, but in the end the promised fruit will be glorious and eternal!
UPDATE
It seems the Miss USA Pageant judges hold a complete disdain for anyone who holds a view contrary to their idea of what marriage should be, because those who have that view should keep it to themselves. Read Alicia Jacobs, a judge, in her own words.
More questions – why is a former Playboy model, Shanna Moakler running the Miss California USA Pageant, along with an openly gay man – Keith Lewis? Are nudes only bad if you’re losing money and need an additional controversial publicity stunt to boost ratings for the Miss USA Pageant? Is diversity only good if you’re part of those who consider themselves diverse?
My other question is: Did Moakler and/or Lewis suggest Prejean be photographed with the newly installed implants? And if so, who leaked the pictures? According to Alicia Jacobs, the Miss USA Pageant should be above reproach, but apparently they don’t think stints as Playboy pinups turned Directors is all that big of a deal. Why should conservative America be shocked? We have no problem admitting we are sinners, unlike others whose pride keeps roaring back as hubris.
If you can’t remember the name of who actually won the pageant, it’s because Perez Hilton made Carrie Prejean (Miss California) the star of the show, and the object of his wrath:
Let’s ask some questions:
1. Why were contestants picking judges and not questions from the container? This allows questions to be tailored to the contestant by the judge, which is precisely what happened. Any judge Prejean picked might have questioned her to the same result. While it appears impartial, this episode seems to have been constructed for 2 purposes: publicity of the pageant and publicity of the gay marriage cause. Why? That’s the next question.
2. Why is a homosexual blogger prone to outrageous militant exploitation sitting on a panel judging female beauty contestants? His aesthetic would be discriminatory against women given his sexual orientation and attitude. That makes his placement purely politically motivated. His venomous hate-filled words show a distinct misogynistic disdain. Was it about her opinion? Or is it her sex?
3. Why was candidate Obama, who provided precisely the same marriage answer as Prejean, not attacked? It’s not her opinion, but as a target of gay pride (mock offense), homosexuals are exploiting this to build hatred against those who defend traditional marriage.
3. Why is this still an issue, particularly with Keith Olberman on MSNBC? Publicity for gay marriage seems to be the primary motivator at this point, because Prejean lost the contest, and the alleged offense doesn’t match the backlash she received.
Technically, Carrie Prejean didn’t answer Hilton’s question, which called for a yes or no answer, and she failed to explain why like this:
“Legalizing same-sex marriage is inherently unfair to traditional married couples and in the long run is potentially harmful to the USA. Traditional marriage encourages procreation, and is best for children who are vital to our nation. Without children to replace the couple in a marriage (2.1 kids actually), a nation’s population diminishes, killing the nation.
Roughly 50% of us were conceived accidently and same-sex couples cannot accidently become pregnant. Given this self-selected sterility and the cost for IVF, it’s unlikely same-sex couples will pay to reproduce. So traditional married couples carry the greater economic and social burden of reproducing the posterity of the nation, while their marriage is deemed legally equal to sterile marriages. That’s direct discrimination against traditional marriage families.
That’s why I believe same-sex marriage is not in the long term interests of any state or the United States.
Frankly, Carrie Prejean should sue the Miss USA pageant to obtain the financing for her defense of marriage foundation. She has a great case for discrimination against her due to her sexual orientation, as well as solid grounds for public defamation of her character. She should include Perez Hilton in the lawsuit and sit him down and deposition him directly about his motives and obtain substantial damages.
In the meantime she’s gathering more potential litigants for libel and defamation.
And if I agree with her opinion, then I guess I’m hated too.
A same-sex marriage culture is not self-sustaining and must rely upon heterosexual culture to continue. If businesses that cannot sustain themselves aren’t desirable, why would same-sex culture be desirable for a nation?
There clearly have been violations of the law requiring reporting of the statutory rape, so the truth of the situation should be confirmed by authorities.
So in these exposés:
Does respective state case law dismiss prosecutorial actions due to journalistic exposure?
Can charges be filed against AG officials for failing to uphold the law?
To what extent is the state judiciary responsible for guardianship actions?
Although failure to report statutory rape is serious, a related problem is being revealed by Lila and her team at LiveAction.
Girls are sent to judges without explicit medical referral. For instance Lila is told to call on her own to obtain a judicial by-pass. Yet, with the state assuming the guardian role, the judicial by-pass hinges entirely upon the testimony of the 14 year old girl, without confirmation of pregnancy or legal determination of the father. Most states have laws stating pregnancy is a medical diagnosis made only by a doctor. How can a judge make a determination without depending upon a chain of responsible medical authority? After all, the judge is not a doctor. It seems sound medical and legal evidence is unnecessary for serious legal action. Is the judiciary breaking the law?
When medical agencies collect data, they are acting on a doctor’s behalf, thus establishing a chain of medical/legal liability. In guardianship situations, these agencies are also acting as agents of the courts because the authority over the child is transferred due to their discovery. PPA’s tactic of blaming it on employees appears to be legally non-binding.
With the financial motive/ conflict of interest in sending the girl for the bypass, there is an incentive to not investigate the cause of the pregnancy, because it may change the business dynamic if statutory rape is discovered.
If the pregnancy was the result of statutory rape, and an abortion was performed with a judicial bypass, then the state itself was complicit in destroying the very evidence of the crime!
Judicial by-passes are inherently complicit in existing abuse and encourage further abuse of little girls.
It’s from the Bible. Abraham’s nephew Lot was pulled from Sodom right before it was destroyed by fire. The prophets referred to those saved from destruction as being like one who is “snatched from the flames”.
If you’ve been thrufire - saved from destruction, then the Holy Spirit frees you to tell that story to glorify God.
There’s many people alive today because someone convinced a mother to save her child from the destruction of abortion. I want to tell the world their life stories. Want to help?
