Do you like big government? Some people do. But let’s take a look at what big government does with the money it takes from taxpayers – many of whom are pro-life.
Here’s an article from Life News to make the point.
It says:
The Obama administration has made funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business a top priority during two terms and the administration has just announced another $5.6 million for the abortion corporation. The grants to various affiliates of the Planned Parenthood abortion business came via the Department of Health and Human Services.
[…]The Obama administration grants to Planned Parenthood follow on the heels of a new report showing Planned Parenthood does one-third of all abortions in the United States.
Planned Parenthood sells itself as a non-profit organization that concerns itself with women’s health, but a shocking new report indicates Planned Parenthood is little more than an abortion business. While the number of abortions it does and the percentage of its operations that are abortions is in the rise, the number of women receiving legitimate health care at Planned Parenthood is steadily declining.
[…]In December, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its 2013 annual report and the new numbers indicate it did more abortions than the year before — killing 327,653 babies in abortions while taking in millions in taxpayer funds. The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.
While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.
Let’s assume you’re a Christian reading that post. Is that how you would spend your money? If not, then why would you want the government to take your money and give it to abortion providers so they can take the lives of innocent unborn children?
Does it make you feel good to think that your vote helps the poor, but without you having to do anything as an individual? I want to suggest that you vote for smaller government, and then use the money you save in taxes to do good things on your own. That way, you can be sure that your money will be used to do things that don’t violate your conscience.
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and saving a life is a good thing
Pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf summarizes a recent debate between a pro-life incrementalist and a pro-life abolitionist. An incrementalist is a pro-lifer who wants to pass laws that save lives right now, while still working for a full ban on abortion. An abolitionist is a pro-lifer who does not want to pass laws that solve part of the problem, preferring to hold off on laws that save lives until they can get all abortions banned.
So there was a debate, and Scott watched it, and here is his review.
First, the intro:
T. Russell Hunter issued a very public challenge calling for any pro-life leader to debate him on incrementalism. Gregg Cunningham, a former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Executive Director of the Center for Bioethical Reform, accepted. The formal debate structure was as follows: 20-minute opening statements, 15-minute rebuttals, 15-minute cross-examination, 5-minute closing statements. An informal audience Q&A followed the formal debate.
[…]Gregg Cunningham won the formal exchange handily and he did so early by pointing out a fundamental flaw in Hunter’s argument—namely, the mistaken claim that pro-lifers have the power to end abortion immediately but won’t. Again and again, he exposed Hunter’s fallacious either/or reasoning by demonstrating that pro-lifers don’t have to choose between incremental legislation that saves some children right now or total abolition that saves all at a later time. Rather, they can advance both strategies simultaneously and save many lives in the process. Cunningham also demonstrated a superior grasp of social reform history, noting that while Wilberforce, Lincoln, and Martin-Luther King were in principle moral absolutists, in practice they functioned as strategic and tactical incrementalists—as do pro-lifers today. During cross-examination, Hunter stumbled badly when asked if those babies saved through incremental legislation should have been left to die. When he refused to give a clear answer—despite being repeatedly pressed to do so—the debate was effectively over. In short, Hunter could not preach his way to victory, even when invoking his understanding of Scripture. His claim that incrementalism is not found in the Bible was decisively refuted when Gregg cited three examples from Scripture where God dealt incrementally with His people.
I watched this video clip to get a feel for how it went down:
In the clip, Cunningham asks if the babies who are saved by incremental legislation should be allowed to die instead. He has some evidence from a law professor saying that incremental laws do save some lives, and he is asking the AHA person should we not enact these incremental laws that save the lives of unborn children.
Scott has the transcript:
GC: I’d like to return to the question with which I began, which Russ hasn’t answered. Should we allow these babies to die rather than enact incremental legislation?
TRH: No.
GC: I’m sorry?
TRH: Like, should we allow – should we allow babies to die?
GC: Should we allow these – because…
TRH: The charade is – the charade is not even what we’re talking about – the incrementalism/immediatism debate. Focusing the ax at the tree, getting all the people who follow incrementalism to become immediatists and help put that ax to the branch – to the root…
GC: Would you answer this question?
TRH & GC: [unintelligible]
Moderator: That was the last question. Russ, go ahead and answer that, and then we’re gonna end this.
GC: Just for the record, Russ didn’t answer the question: Should we have allowed these babies to die, which this university professor says would have died had that legislation not been enacted. Should we have allowed them to die rather than enact the incremental legislation?
Moderator: Okay, Russ, answer that question, then we’ll change.
TRH: Um, well, I firmly believe that abortion is evil, and it is one of these things that the powers and principalities of darkness and high places are very in to. It’s the crown jewel of darkness, and I actually believe that if they can keep abortion going by deceiving people into becoming gradualists, they will do it. And if to deceive them they have to give them empty, illusory victories, and law professors may claim that babies were saved, they’ll do it. But I – if someone goes to an abortion mill and shoots a doctor, a baby might be saved that day, but that’s not going towards abolishing abortion. It’s not establishing justice that day [unintelligible] a baby that day.
GC: May I ask for clarification for your answer? You’re saying this guy’s making this up?
TRH: Uh, no, I have to read it. But I’m just saying that convincing people to be gradualists by saying, “Hey look, we saved some,” while they’re still being – I’m pretty sure that you can convince people to be gradualists for the next 40 years…
GC: Hey Russell, let’s do both. Let’s do both. Let’s do both.
Honestly, I am not sure why anyone pays these AHA people any mind. Just judging from that one clip, I don’t think that Hunter has anything of value to say in this debate. His group seems to be more concerned with attacking other pro-lifers who actually are getting the job done than doing anything. In the real world, incremental pro-life laws save lives. To be persuasive on those incremental laws, you have to talk about the logic and science that supports the pro-life view. That will be persuasive to Christians as well as non-Christians. Building consensus for incremental pro-life laws by appealing to a bigger audience that includes non-Christians makes sense – it solves the actual problem.
MPs have defeated a cross-party bid to clarify in law that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal in the UK.
Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, who spearheaded the move, said the law was being “interpreted in different ways”.
But her proposal was defeated by 292 to 201. A review of the extent of sex selective abortion was agreed to.
[…]Her amendment would not have changed the law, but sought to update 1967 legislation that was drafted before it was possible to identify the sex of a foetus.
[…]Making the case for the change, the Congleton MP said her amendment would “clarify beyond doubt in statute that sex selective abortion is illegal in UK law”.
Now you might think that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats would be against killing unborn girls, just because they are the “wrong” sex.
But you’d be wrong. The Shadow Secretary Yvette Cooper wrote to all the Labour MPs urging them to vote against the bill.
“Mrs Bruce has provoked furious opposition from the most radical elements in the pro-abortion lobby, who have now been joined by pro-abortion MPs like Yvette Cooper, Jenny Willott and Sarah Newton in attempts to block the condemnation of aborting baby girls,” he said.
“Most pro-abortion MPs were initially content to ignore this move because they know it will not change the law. However, the mere restatement of the law has split the ranks of the pro-abortion lobby, dividing feminists who recognise that it is used predominantly to abort girls, from feminists who regard the right to demand an abortion for any reason or no reason as the touchstone of feminist orthodoxy,” Tully explained. “The more extreme lobby regard the unborn child as a non-entity and won’t face the fact that each baby is either a boy or a girl. Aborting baby girls demeans all women, just as aborting babies because of their disability or racial characteristics demeans others like them. The truth is that every abortion demeans all of us.”
He concluded: “Ms Cooper’s statement undermines claims that Labour MPs are free to vote according to conscience on this issue. As shadow Home Office Secretary, she has intervened not simply to tell Labour MPs to support abortion, but to support one of the most blatant abuses of the law.”
Cooper is a high-ranking Labour MP. Jenny Willott is a Liberal Democrat MP. Sarah Newton is a Conservative MP.
In the UK, the crime is not even being prosecuted.
Britain’s top law officer is to come under pressure in the House of Commons this week to say why the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute over the gender selection abortion scandal.
Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, will face questions from Tory MPs who want the Government to tighten up the 1967 Abortion Act in the wake of the scandal.
The comments come as Britain’s most senior prosecutor prepares to release a paper justifying his decision not to prosecute two doctors over an abortion scandal.
So, there was definitely a need for the law, since no one was being prosecuted for breaking it. And the measure strengthening the language was defeated – which tells me that they like things just the way they are now.
WINTERY KNIGHT 