Planned Parenthood and the Left: An Inconvenient Truth

The recent Planned Parenthood undercover videos have provided a venue for a discussion that the leftist media does not want to have:  The horror of abortion.  The videos brought to our living room the truth about abortion.  Is abortion “a woman’s right to choose”? or “women’s health”?  The inescapable videos bring the truth about abortion in front of our eyes.  The killing, by dismemberment, of a human being.  There are people who do not want to see these images.  Why not?  They do not want to admit an inconvenient truth:  Abortion kills a human being in the most brutal way, by dismemberment, limb by limb.   We are horrified by the beheadings by the ISIS killers in the Middle East.   Abortion does the same thing and we call it “women’s health.”  Who are the barbarians?

Leftist politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, say that the videos are doctored?  doctored?  have they watched any of them in full?  probably not. Click here to hear Ms. Pelosi verify this statement.  So, let me see if I understand this, you have not watched the videos but you think they’re doctored? Do you have any proof of this?  No.  On September 27, 2015, NBC’s “Meet the Press” host, Chuck Todd had Carly Fiorina on.  He thought he would catch her in a misstatement about her comment about Planned Parenthood in the last debate.  You could see he was salivating.  Carly humiliated him in her sharp, clear and concise response.  This is one for the ages.  Click here to see it.

As I was driving today, I saw a person with a bumper sticker on her car saying:  “I’m Catholic, I vote.”  Now this is a very naive person.  The truth of the matter is that Catholics are no different from the general population when it comes to voting on moral issues.  Democrats would never win an election if all Catholics voted according to church teaching, such as the sanctity of life and the importance of traditional marriage,    The sad fact is that liberal Catholics are no different from liberal atheists. Catholics, like liberal Christians and Jews, have substituted leftism as their number one religion; traditional religion is always secondary. Click here for an incisive analysis by Dennis Prager  on Joe Biden and leftism.

Advertisements

Why the Left is Anti-Christian

The recent Hobby-Lobby Supreme Court case highlights why it is a contradiction to be a Christian and a leftist or a liberal Democrat.  Immediately upon hearing the court decision the left went nuts.  Let’s back up and pretend that we’re Lt. Columbo.  What is the issue here?  The issue here is simple:  nobody should be forced to violate their religious beliefs by paying for an abortifacient.  Simple as that.  Nobody is preventing anyone from getting these drugs.  As a matter of fact you can get this drug at Target for no more than $9.00 per month, even if you don’t have insurance.  Who is forcing whom?  I say that the political left is trying to force their view on everyone else.

To add insult to injury, the political left, in the name of the Democratic Party, and Senator Patty Murray proposed a law that would override the Hobby-Lobby case.  Click here to see the story on the very leftist Huffington Post.  What more smoking gun do you need that left is anti-Christian and anti-religious freedom.

Abortion and “The Big Lie”

We all marvel at how an entire nation like the Germany of World War II could support the murderous Adolph Hitler.   Indeed, Hitler perpetuated the lie that the Jews were somehow “the problem.”  His most ardent henchman, Joseph Goebbels,  is famous for saying that if you repeat a lie many times people will eventually believe it as truth.  There is a perfect correlation today on how many people, including religious Christians, Jews and others can believe that a perfectly healthy baby can be killed, as long as it is in the mother’s womb.  Take the recent Dr. Gosnell murder trial where he killed babies after the baby came out of the womb.  He routinely snipped the neck of the struggling baby on the table to kill it.  This outraged most people and Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder.

A reporter recently asked Nancy Pelosi what is the difference between what Dr. Gosnell did and the killing of a baby in the womb?  Pelosi opposes any law limiting partial birth abortion, even though she claims to be Catholic.  She gave an angry convoluted answer, which did not address the question, but trotted out “a woman’s right to choose.”  Watch this video of Pelosi responding to this question – it’s a classic. This is contrary to all logic, yet many people, including good friends of mine who attend the same church I do,  cannot admit that there is no difference.  They keep stating the nonsensical answer that women have “a right to do with their bodies what they like,” or words to that effect.

What has happened in our society, world-wide, is that the lie about abortion has been repeated so many times, and indeed everyday, that these people believe it as truth.  There is no difference between what the Nazis did to six million Jews and what we do today to unborn babies in the womb; the Nazis killed innocent human beings and we kill innocent human beings in the womb.  What supports this claim?  Science has verified that human life begins at conception; logic tells you that the baby in the womb is the same baby in a mother’s loving arms, a few minutes after birth.  Natural  Law, the law written in all of our hearts, tells us that murder is wrong.  You don’t need to be educated to know that murder is wrong.  Should you have any questions about this, just go to anyone in the world and ask them if murder is OK.  Another example of the law written in our heart:  let’s say I come to your house and before I leave I take you nice new Nikon Camera that you spent $1,000 without your permission.  Would the owner of the camera say that was wrong?  We know, by instinct, what is right and wrong.  Abortion is the killing of a human life and it is wrong all the time, under all circumstances.

Abortion and Pascal’s Wager

I became pro-life as an adult in mid-life – when I was finally intellectually honest with myself and acknowledge that the overwhelming evidence was on the pro-life side.  Why did it take so long to see the light?  I did not acknowledge that the other side had a good argument.  I ignored the facts so I could feed my beliefs at the time.  Once I was able to look at the facts and challenge myself, I had to conclude that pro-life is the most logical and correct view.

Another reason that forced me to consider the pro-life argument was my inner voice asking me how I would explain my position to God at the final judgment.  The more I thought about it the more my arguments were neither credible nor could they be supported by any evidence, whether scientific or theological.  Additionally, my church was strongly pro-life, how would I reconcile this?  If I disregard the church on this issue, then it would follow that I could also disregard the Bible or any other theological argument that I disagreed with.  In other words, I am the final judge, not the Bible and not God.  Not a good argument.

Now, what does “Pascal’s Wager” have to do with this? Some history first.  Early philosophers, and Church fathers St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas have argued powerfully for the existence of God.  Anselm lived in the eleventh century and Aquinas in the thirteenth.  Thomas Aquinas offered five proofs for the existence of God in his renowned masterpiece Summa Theologiae, such as the argument from motion, the nature of efficient cause, etc.  These arguments are used to this day to argue for the existence of God. Both of these two men are intellectual giants in philosophy and theology.

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician and philosopher who lived in the 17th century.   Pascal developed his “wager” as a response to the atheist who says that there is no God and that once we die that is the end; like a flower that dies.   Pascal’s complete text on this is difficult and beyond my task here.  To make it simple, here is what the wager states:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Pascal argued that betting against God was a losing proposition. Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God.  Most philosophers have accepted Pascal’s Wager argument.

As I related earlier here, I realized that my pro-choice position was tenuous at best – even before I had ever heard of Pascal.  The reason is very simple.  If you wrongly hold to your pro-choice view that abortion is acceptable and it is “a woman’s right to choose” whether to deliver a baby or to abort it (kill it) then, even if you don’t believe in God, you’ve gained nothing.  But, if you wrongly hold that the pro-choice position is correct, and there is a God, you risk facing the judgment of God at the final judgment.  Additionally, upon our death, this cannot be reversed.  Can you afford to take this gamble?

A person who is pro-choice, in my opinion, is like a person facing a mountain such as Mount Everest – staring at it from the bottom of it and saying:  “I see this mountain, but it’s not really there.”  Are you comfortable with this position?  Let’s look as some of the evidence for the pro-life position:

  • Science has confirmed that life begins at conception,
  • The Catholic Church has taught, from the beginning, that life begins at conception and is precious in God’s eyes and no one has the right to take it,
  • The Bible teaches that human life is made in God’s image and commands us not to kill,
  • The Christian Church, Judaism, and Islam all are nearly unanimously pro-life.

The pro-choice side makes a fatal logical error when they claim that abortion is a private matter and a “woman’s right to choose.”  The error is mistaking an objective claim for a subjective claim. [i]  The pro-life position deals with an objective moral claim – it claims that a human life is at stake.  It cannot be a subjective claim such as “a woman’s right to choose;” this is like saying I choose chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla. Moral claims are not subject to choice.  This is the fundamental mistake that everybody accepts without question.   A woman (nor anyone else) cannot choose to kill a human life, not even her own.  Would you accept the proposition that a woman can choose to kill a month old baby? What’s the difference?  The unborn is a human being in one location and the one-month-old baby is a human being in another location.  How can location make a difference?

I’m amazed every time someone makes the statement “a woman’s right to choose” such as we hear from pro-choice politicians.  Mayor Rudy Giuliani just made such a statement recently when asked about his pro-choice position.  No one ever thinks to challenge this absurd assertion.  Again, look at Pascal’s Wager – it also applies to being pro-life.  It is the right bet.  You cannot afford to be on the wrong side of this issue. Eternity is at stake.


[i] See Pro-Life 101 by Scott Klusendorf, p. 16, 2002, Stand to Reason Press, http://www.str.org

Liberal Catholics Eat the Apple

Catholics represent about 25% of the U.S. population and are a formidable voting block, if it were not that they vote the same as the general population.  In 2008, for example, 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion, far left politician in U.S. history.  Obama was then and is now a fervent defender of abortion rights at any stage and even after a failed abortion, he voted to deny life to a baby that had survived abortion when he was in the Illinois house.  He is for gay marriage and has waged a war with the Catholic Church on religious freedom in his HHS mandate that Catholic institutions must provide for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs to their employees, even though this goes against church teaching.  Obama promised Cardinal Dolan of New York that he would do whatever it takes to protect religious freedom in a face to face meeting. Click here to hear Cardinal Dolan discuss this meeting.

Abortion and marriage are two huge church teachings, but Catholics choose to ignore their church.  The dictionary defines apostasy as:  the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.  It can be stated categorically that such catholics are apostates, yet they attend church and receive communion as if they were in line with the church.  The church herself turns a blind eye to such people; it’s sort of “don’t ask don’t tell” situation.  The church herself is infested with such people in its own ranks.  For example, a large group of nuns have been recently censured for not following church teaching as it relates to abortion, marriage, women as priests and an interpretation of the scriptures that is more in line with Marxism than with the church, such as the followers of Liberation Theology.  Catholic universities such as Notre Dame and Georgetown openly entertain dissent from church doctrine as if it were the right thing to do.  Just recently, Georgetown trotted out a student, Sandra Fluke, to support the Obama Administration’s denial of religious freedom in the HHS Mandate.  A few weeks later they hosted a speech by Kathleen Sibelius who is the author of the HHS mandate against religious freedom.  Notre Dame university hosted President Obama after his election despite his hostility to church teaching on marriage and the dignity of life.

Catholics have had the power to shape our political and moral landscape and have opted out.  Prior to 1973 many Democrats, including the Kennedys were pro-life, as was most of the Democratic Party.  What happened?  In a Wall Street Journal article of January 1, 2009, Anne Hendershott explains:  “But that all changed in the early ’70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters).  They were presented with the same test as Adam and Eve but chose to align with the devil instead.   Hendershott explains how the Kennedys changed:   “In some cases, church leaders actually started providing “cover” for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights.  At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a “clear conscience.”  One of the participants, Father Giles Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice:  “The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at nearby hotel.  In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers.  Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics…. and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.”  Among the Catholic luminaries who advised on this were Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan and Charles Curran.

Because of this the U.S. Liberal Catholics have chosen to follow the serpent rather than God.    I may be wrong, but I don’t think so. Liberal Catholics have sold the church down the river of death.  Since 1973 over 55 million babies have been killed by abortion.

“My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me?”

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani (my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?) was one of the last sayings of Jesus on the cross before he died.  In recent weeks we’ve been deluged in the main stream media on the news of the killing of a young man in Florida, Trayvon Martin.  People have been outraged about it and many cities throughout the United States have had demonstrations protesting the killing of this young man.

Since this is Easter week, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ who gave his body to save us from our sins.  I can’t help but think how ironic it is that the death of one young man, can engender such outrage, but the death of 1.5 million innocent, unborn babies killed each year in the United States alone does not even register on any scale with most people.  Since 1973, 54.5 million babies have been killed, not including a count from states like California and at least four other states who do not report the number of abortions they do.   Mr. Martin was shot to death, the unborn are dismembered inside their mother’s womb in a most barbaric way, yet no one demonstrates and even our president is happy to defend this barbarity.  In 2002 the then Senator Obama voted to deny protection to a baby who had survived an abortion.  Jesus Christ gave his life for us but 1.5 million mothers take the life of their own babies for the purpose of personal convenience.

Fr. Frank Pavone, the Director of Priests for Life, has a brilliant piece in which he compares what Jesus did for us on the cross compared to what people who abort their babies:

Scripture tells us that on the night before He died to save all people, the Lord Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is My Body, which is given up for you.” He was pointing to what would happen the next day, when He would give that same Body on the cross. He sacrifices Himself so that we may live. He gives up His Body so that He can destroy the power of sin and death. As a result, He welcomes us into His life, into His Kingdom. He makes us members of His Body!  On the other hand, abortion supporters say, “This is my body. So don’t interfere with it! It’s mine, so I can do what I want, even to the point of killing the life within it. All is secondary to my dominion over my body.” In fact one abortion supporter has written, “I say their (pro-lifers’) God is worth nothing compared to my body” (Michelle Goldberg, “Rant for Choice,” in University of Buffalo student newspaper, 1995).

A touching and compelling music video called “This is My Body” brilliantly demonstrates what Fr. Pavone says in the earlier quote.  Click here to see it.

A Vote for a “Pro-Choice” Politician is a Vote for Abortion

It has been a well-known fact that in the Roman Catholic Church, there is no difference with the general population in their pro-abortion views and how they vote.  This is one of the saddest failures of the church today.  In 2008, for example, 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion President in United States  history.  “Pro-Choice” advocates subscribe to what can only be categorized as language slight of hand by calling the killing of an unborn “a woman’s right to do with her body as she likes” or ” a woman’s right to choose,” or ” a decision between a woman and her doctor.”

If you analyze this type of language, this would be the equivalent as saying, I have the choice to kill my newborn baby, as long as I do it in private.  Scott Klusendorf, a well-known pro-life apologist, has an example that will hit home:  Suppose you are a young couple with a young child.  You’re doing dishes when your little toddler comes up behind you and asks, “mom/dad can I kill this?”  What do you need to know before you answer?  What is it?  If it’s a cockroach, you immediately say yes; if it’s his little sister your answer is a definite NO.  All of these sayings of the “pro-choice” crowd are the equivalent of justifying murder by changing what you call it.  If we call it “choice”  they say it’s fine.  But, abortion is the killing of a human being in an early stage of development.  Accordingly, if you vote for a politician who agrees with the earlier mentioned sayings such as “my body, my choice,” you are voting for abortion.  The Roman Catholic Church has been very clear on its position on abortion.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls abortion an evil.  Additionally, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church have specifically stated that a vote for a pro-abortion politician is a vote for abortion and is morally reprehensible.  Cardinal Burke has made a video stating just this.  Click here to view it.

As members of a church such as the Catholic church or any Christian church that follows the Bible, we have a responsibility to have politicians who hold our values.  To vote for a politicians who favor abortion rights is the same as voting for someone who, as an example, favors the killing of all babies under the age of two for instance.  By voting for such a person you are cooperating with evil and you will have the same blood on your hands as the abortionist.  The “pro-choice” advocate will say that “there are more issues than just abortion.  Yes there are, but life is the number one issue.  If you do not have life you do not have any other issue.  To those who hold this view I say this:  Let’s say that you like politician X; he/she holds all your philosophy or values, but he believes that a certain ethnic group is not human and can be killed at will, as long as it’s done in private.  Would you vote for this person?  What about all the other issues?  The position that abortion is not the only issue is another self-defeating fallacy – it cannot stand on its own logic.