Is Abortion an Option?


The Lenten season is the time for the 40 Days for Life campaign in the U.S. and many other places in the world.  Click here for information on 40 Days for Life, as well as locations near you.  My wife and I make time to visit the one near us in Lawndale, California.  The vigil is in front of the Planned Parenthood facility on Hawthorne Blvd and 147th Street.  As we were standing on the sidewalk holding pro-life signs many motorists pass-by honking their horn and flashing a thumbs up sign, in approval for what we do.  Not all approve though.  I’m sure we irritate many who are fervently pro-abortion, or as the PC crowd would call it, “pro-choice.”

One person who had stopped for a red light in a pick-up truck was heard asking “is not abortion a choice?”  Good question.  You would probably automatically say yes, but that would not be correct.  Is killing a human being an option?  Of course not.  We don’t need the Bible to know that.   We were born with an inherent conscience and a sense of what’s right and wrong.   This is referred to in philosophy as “The Natural Law.”  Natural law is written in our hearts.  If you don’t believe it, try stealing your neighbor’s stereo system and see if he/she complains; and if he/she complains ask why.  The killing of a human being is NOT an option.  These are the most vulnerable and helpless human beings.  How can we not protect them?  Will a mother leave her baby alone unattended?


A Doctor Declares Abortion as Doing “God’s Work.”

Some recent postings on Facebook have highlighted some “Christian Pastors” celebrating abortions and blessing Planned Parenthood offices.  One, a doctor, even mentioned that he is doing “God’s work” by aborting babies because “he’s helping women.”   The word, abomination, comes to mind when I see this.  This medical doctor says that by dismembering a fully formed human being in the womb, he is doing God’s work?   Here is the story about this doctor, Willie Parker.  Click here to read it.  Lord help us.

We really don’t need any theology or the Bible, for that matter, to know that what was just described earlier is not only nonsense but a clear-cut abomination.  We don’t need the Bible to know that murder is wrong, for instance.  We know that we can’t kill human beings like we kill an animal for food.  This is a common, universally accepted axiom.

The Bible contains many prohibitions against killing the innocent.  In Genesis 9 we read:

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

There are many other places in the Bible that condemn taking of human life.  I will not get more.  My point here is that although the Bible prohibits human killing, we need only use common sense to see that it is wrong.

The Unborn and the Mustard Seed

Last Friday, we attended Mass at our church.  On daily Masses, the homily is very short, usually three to five minutes.  The priest’s homily was about the Gospel reading for this date, Mark 4:26-34,  in which Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God:

Jesus said to the crowds:
“This is how it is with the Kingdom of God;
it is as if a man were to scatter seed on the land
and would sleep and rise night and day
and the seed would sprout and grow,
he knows not how.
Of its own accord the land yields fruit,
first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
And when the grain is ripe, he wields the sickle at once,
for the harvest has come.”

The homily also compared this story with how life begins in the womb.  Just like we need to take care of the seed  we plant, we also need to take care of the seed in the womb.   A Farmer, before planting the seed must prepare the land.  The seed needs to land in the proper place, not on hard ground, on rocks on the paths where birds will quickly eat it.  After planting we need to water the land and watch over it.  We don’t know how that tiny little seed sprouts but all we have to do is take care that it is safe.  Once the seed is planted it has all it needs to become a plant.  This is how the unborn begins life.  Once conception has taken place we need to protect it, not disturb it like removing it from the womb before it is born.  God and nature do all the work.  After conception, a new and distinctive human life begins.  It will develop on its own.  It has all the DNA instructions that it needs to develop into all the stages of life, without outside interference or input.

As you’ve heard in the news lately, the Governor of New York just signed a bill that will allow abortion until birth; basically legal infanticide.  The Governor of Virginia attempted a similar bill but was denied by his legislature, for now.  The killing of a human being like the unborn is immoral and against, not only God’s law, but against humanity.  We imprison people who kill other humans and sometimes execute them.  This is not based on any religion, it’s based on human civil law.


Pro-Life is Pro-Science

In today’s culture, our universities, and public schools are controlled by the secular left. This, unfortunately, is also true for most Catholic and Protestant schools, perhaps not to the extent of public schools.  Anything having to do with religion or faith is verboten. Scientism rules the day at any of our learning institutions. Scientism is simply the belief that only the hard sciences can give us knowledge.  J.P. Moreland, a noted philosopher and theologian, and an expert on scientism says that scientism is not a doctrine of science, but of philosophy. First of all, it is self-refuting, that is, it commits suicide the minute it is uttered; it cannot be proven by science.  So, in effect, the proponents of such a view have failed to prove their own theory.  A recent book by J.P. Moreland, “Scientism and Secularism,” makes the case that scientism is not only self-refuting but not coherent.  Chapter six of this book starts with “These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an excepted non-scientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be put aside?  In our culture, the scientific claim always wins.  Appealing to science always settles the issue.”

Now what has this to do the argument in support for the protection of the unborn and the dignity of human life?  Well, plenty. You see the secular educators, and that is probably over 90% of all our teachers, love to brag that they are pro-science and those of us who support the unborn are anti-science. Our view, they would say, is based on religion and opinion.   However, they ignore the elephant in the room.  It has been a scientific position that the unborn are human and that life begins at conception.  This is not new; it has been known for a very long time. Click herefor more information.  Here are a couple of quotes from the best scientific minds on this issue:

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” and discoverer of the cause of Down’s Syndrome, stated, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic, stated, “Byall the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Now, who is anti-science? It’s breathtaking to see how easily the scientism of our culture and our universities choose to ignore their own declaration that science is the only way of knowing anything.  Even without science, you can easily understand that life begins at the first stage, conception, followed by an embryo.  All of us started that way.  Life has stages.  To say that you’re not human at the beginning but are human at a later stage, makes no logical sense.  Who is to determine when life begins, if not at the beginning when the sperm and the egg come together? 

The question that must be asked is what is the unborn?  Scott Klusendorf, one of America’s most eloquent defenders of the unborn says this is the crucial question.  Klusendorf speaks around the country in defense of the unborn. Click herefor a short three-minute video by Klusendorf on how to argue with a secular person, based on knowledge, science, philosophy and logic only.

What does King Herod and Illegal Immigrants Have in Common?

At this morning’s kaffeeklatsch one of the men mentioned that he had visited his mother, and both had gone to church together. He was happy to be in church with his mother until the homily began, that’s when he said he almost walked out of church.  The priest giving the homily had gone into a political harangue about the current immigration crisis at the California border where about 10,000 South American immigrants want to force their way into the United States.  The priest compared these illegal immigrants with the Biblical story of King Herod ordering the killing of all babies two years-old and under as described in the Gospel of Matthew 2:16, and the story of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus.  Now what is the comparison between the two here?  None whatsoever.  Let me explain.

Joseph and Mary were ordered to flee to Egypt by “an Angel of the Lord” who told them that Herod had ordered the murder of all babies two and under. They were further instructed to stay in Egypt until told to leave (Matthew 2:13).  They did not go to Egypt for economic or other reasons; they fled to escape certain death.  Now, are the South American immigrants coming to California because an angel of the Lord ordered them?  Are they in danger of being murdered by an order of the rulers of their country?  To make such comparison is nothing short of religious fraud.  The priest who made this comparison knows nothing of the Biblical story, or if he does, he chose to twist it to match his leftist religion which I propose he is now following instead of the Bible. This is religious malpractice.

What this priest did is not uncommon.  I’ve heard deacons and priest make such comparisons in my church, although not as literal as the example above.  In one instance I heard a Deacon at my church say that governments do have a right to control their border, but in the very next sentence say that we should let all who want to come here enter undisturbed.  What?  Apparently, he was not conscious of the contradiction.  Blinded by leftist ideology rather than sound judgement.  Our political leaders are also in the same camp as the priest mentioned earlier.  Watch this video of Congressman Luis Guttierez make the comparison of illegal immigration and Joseph and Mary’s escape to Egypt (FF to 4.53 of clip).  I could not help but to notice that in this bad comparison, no one thought of the 1.2 million babies murdered in the womb yearly in the United States. I guess they are not comparable to illegal immigrants.

In other parts of the Bible, Jesus states that we must follow the law of our civil rulers. In Romans 13 we read:  “Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.”   In Mark 12:17 we are told: “Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  We don’t even need to refer to the Bible to know that we must follow the law.  For those who do not follow chaos. It makes perfect sense.  Yet, we keep hearing from some pastors and others that when it comes to immigrants, we can ignore the law.

Every country has a right to control their border.  When my family immigrated to the United States we had to follow U.S. Immigration procedures in place at the time.  We got on a list and waited for three years until our name came up.  We provided all requested documentation, completed a medical examination for the entire family, eight of us, provided proof of a waiting job in the U.S., housing, and agreed to not be a burden to the state.  This is the proper way to immigrate.  Ignoring the law and forcing yourself upon another sovereign state is not the way. Many countries will arrest anyone not properly entering their territory, as they have a right to do.

Prior to 1924, the United States had open border, then Congress decided to limit immigration by establishing quotas.  Click here to find out about the Immigration Act of 1924 it is very interesting.  

“We Call Them as we See Them;” How Activist Judges are a Threat to Democracy

In recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, conservative nominees such as Justice Roberts, Alito, Gorshuch and Kavanaugh would say that a judge’s role is to “call balls and strikes,” meaning they rule on the law, as written, not legislate from the bench or make up a law that does not exist.  In the last week we’ve heard President Trump complain about what he called “Obama judges,” meaning that an activist judge ruled according to his ideology not the law.  As a rule conservative judges rule on the written law; judges appointed by liberal presidents tend to rule, not according to the law, but according to their ideology, not the law as written.

Example number one:  Today,  a Federal judge struck down a Mississipi abortion law, prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks. Click here to read the story.  Here is a prime example of not ruling according to a law on the books.  No, the judge ruled according to his ideology.  To support this point, the judge in this case commented that he thinks that men should not be able to rule on abortion cases.  What?  Is this a judge who follows the law?

Example number two.  In California in November 2008 over seven million Californians voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.  One judge, overruled seven million voters.  Later, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for same sex marriage.  Five unelected men overruled the will of the people.  Now, where did the judges find the law that said marriage can be for same-sex couples?  Is it written anywhere?  No, they ruled according to their ideology, not the law.  The judges ruled for same sex marriage based on the equal protection part of the constitutional.  But how is marriage a right under equal protection?  From time immemorial marriage has been between a man and a woman.  Where is the violation of equal protection?  Again, a ruling based on the culture of the day, not written law.  Now, I agree, you could pass a law allowing same sex marriage, if it was passed by our legislature, but in this case the judges made the law.

Look at any law passed by any state on abortion and you will find that in time a judge will overturn it.  This is law by judges not by a duly elected legislature.  This should trouble any one.  This is why it is so important that President Trump appoint as many conservatives to the bench as possible.  Only then will we have judges that rule on the law not on the culture of the day.  Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, one of the most respected law scholars in America wrote a book on why marriage should only be between a man and a woman.  The book is called “What is Marriage?”  This is a very scholarly book which gives the philosophical, biological and rational reasons for the case for traditional marriage.  Here is a short description of the book on Until yesterday, no society had seen marriage as anything other than a conjugal partner­ship: a male-female union. What Is Marriage? identifies and defends the reasons for this historic consensus and shows why redefining civil marriage is unnecessary, unreasonable, and contrary to the common good.


What is Truth?

In today’s Easter Gospel we read the account of Jesus before Pilate in John 18 – 19.  Pilate asks Jesus “what is truth”?  In today’s deeply divided culture we seem to have our own truth.  The left has its truth and the right theirs.  A couple of examples: 1) In the recent Congressional investigation of Russian collusion, it was discovered that the FBI may have abused the FISA Court in getting a warrant to monitor an American citizen, Carter Page.  The Republicans came out with a scathing report of such abuses.  The Democrats, on the other hand totally denied that there was any impropriety and came out with their own version of events; two different “truths.”  This is a contradiction.  You cannot have two different versions of an event and both be true.  Either one is true or the other false. 2) The other example is the situation with the Planned Parenthood (PP) tapes that showed  PP selling aborted baby parts.  The videos told one story, but there was another story by the supporters of PP and PP itself.  Click here to see some of these videos.

Recently I posted something on my Facebook page regarding Planned Parenthood and how it was exposed by these videos and someone responded with an ad hominem attack stating that the videos had been “heavily edited” and “doctored.”  Here is where we run into a logic problem.   In the book, Ten Universal Principles by Robert Spitzer, he discusses ten universal principles that are universally accepted such as The Principle of Noncontradiction, The Principle of Objective Evidence and so on.

When we argue about facts, we cannot simply assert something as a matter of subjective opinion in order to be true, this would be merely subjective verification and therefore, it could not be used to prove something to somebody else, Spitzer writes in page 16.  Additionally, something like what the person told me about the “doctored” videos earlier is simply arbitrarily asserted.  What is arbitrarily asserted without evidence can be arbitrarily denied without evidence.  So the person making the assertion about the videos being “doctored” has no proof or evidence to support claim; only an arbitray assertion.

What is so disturbing today is that reason, logic and philosophy are not even considered in our debates about what is truth as Pilate asked Jesus.  I see this especially true on the left of the political spectrum.  They never ask, is it true? or is there any evidence?  They only make statements arbitrarily.  This will not pass the reason or the logic test.  In the Planned Parenthood videos mentioned here, we heard Planned Parenthood and their supporters on the left yell and scream that the videos were not true, but all they pointed to was their own subjective opinon, no facts and no evidence.  So, what is truth?  Well, according to some, it’s whatever they say it is.