Alfonzo Rachel - What the Bible Really Says About Abortion

People who support abortion sometimes argue that there is no reference to abortion in the Bible. Zo refutes these arguments. Hear how on this ZoNation.

19 ...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

March for Life - Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

What exactly is the difference between murdering a child and allowing a child who has lived through an abortion attempt, is breathing on it's own and separated from the birth mother, to die of shock, thirst and starvation in excruciating pain, screaming and sobbing in terror for help?

Two questions that Every American Citizen should ask themselves:

1. 'When exactly does a baby alive and breathing on its own and separated from its birth Mother become an American Citizen?'
2. When does a baby born in America have Constitutional 'Rights and Protections' guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights - especially the 'Right to Life'?

BAIPA stands for 'Born Alive Infant Protection Act'.
In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill titled the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA) that was supported by Senators John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and received a unanimous bi-partisan vote (97-0) in the U.S. Senate.

The reason for the enactment of the BAIPA Bill, it was found that 'Babies' who survived abortions (estimated at 100 to 600 per year Nationally) were being treated as medical waste and placed on a tray and left to die by 'Pain Shock', thirst or starvation. As a Illinois State Senator Barack Obama voted NO 4 times against a similar bill proposed in the Illinois Legislature and later as Chairman of the Illinois State Senate committee Barack Obama did NOT allow the 'Bill' to come to a vote.
As a Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama denied these charges and stated that it was a 'Lie' and a smear campaign designed to ruin his Candidacy.

After overwhelming evidence that the charges were True, (especially after a New York Times Article), Barack Obama recanted and said that 'HE WAS THE ONE' who had mis-represented his position on the 'BAIPA' bill in Illinois, which had the exact same wording as the 'BAIPA' bill passed and signed into law by the U.S. Congress and President Bush.

Barack Obama stated his reasoning behind opposing the Illinois 'BAIPA' bill was that there were already laws against murder and he was convinced that the 'BAIPA' bill was a conspiracy to try and render 'ALL' abortions illegal.

---

Melissa Ohden shares her story.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Star Parker - Most Basic Choice is Choosing Life

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas gave good reason for celebration for the hundreds of thousands who will arrive in Washington on Monday for the 39th annual March for Life.

The Court upheld last week the constitutionality of a new law in Texas requiring that abortion providers provide ultrasound exams and that women listen to the physician’s description of her unborn child and to the heartbeat before deciding to abort.

The law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry in May, was blocked by a federal district court in August which argued that the law impinged on free speech rights of abortion providers.

Now Texas may become not just the nation’s largest creator of jobs, but the nation’s best protector of human life.

Ultrasound images of unborn children are turning the abortion game around and it is why abortion providers and organizations such as Planned Parenthood that promote the barbarous abortion regime are so on edge about it.

There is a wide range of estimates on the percentages of woman who intended to abort that change their mind after seeing an ultrasound image of their child, but all these estimates show they have a major impact.

My own anecdotal surveys from crisis pregnancy centers around the country that I work with indicate anywhere from 62% to 95% of women who intended to abort change their mind after seeing these images.

Focus on the Family reports that 84% do. Focus on the Family also operates a generous program called Operation Ultrasound through which they provide ultrasound equipment and training to crisis pregnancy centers that apply.

According to Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the Texas law, “If this decision stands, it opens the floodgates for other states to insert themselves in an inappropriate way between doctors and women seeking medical care.”

What can you possibly conclude from a movement that labels itself “pro-choice” that opposes ensuring that women who make a decision as serious and grave as abortion have as much vital information as possible before making that choice?

Good information is the oxygen that enables good decision making.

The answer to the question is that the movement that labels itself “pro-choice” is not about promoting choice at all. It is about promoting abortion.

It is why the so called “pro-choice” movement opposes efforts to better provide women - disproportionately young, poor, minority women – with information that raises their awareness and understanding of what they are doing.

We might recall the impact that television images had after Hurricane Katrina when the reality of poverty in America suddenly was out there for all to see. No one could turn their eyes from this ugly and unpleasant truth.

Including our politicians. Our nation’s capital has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. Any member of congress can see it by just walking a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol Building. But suddenly, when the images were on national television, the politicians were out there pontificating.

An ultrasound image of an unborn child is the same type of media event. Suddenly the mother-to-be sees what she didn’t know or perhaps knew and wanted to avoid confronting. That she is the bearer of human life and that she is close to murdering that very life that she chose to help create.

According to Americans United for Life, 460 pieces of legislation were considered in state legislatures around the nation last year.

The forces promoting ignorance are losing and light is shining through.

It is reason for optimism that increasingly more Americans are grasping that for a free country to function, we need informed and responsible citizens.

We need appreciation that our choices matter. And that the most important choice, as we learn in Deuteronomy, is to choose life.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

The Barack Obama BAIPA and Abortion Record

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - Postmodern Political Correctness and Christianity II

Author’s Note: Mike Adams will be speaking outside the Capitol Building in Denver at noon on January 21st for Colorado Right to Life (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/). The speech will kick off the 2012 March for Life. The event is open to the public.

In January 2009, a pro-life group at Spokane Falls Community College (SFCC) decided to publicize and protest the disproportionate abortion rate among black Americans. They argued that the racist roots of Planned Parenthood were reflected in the organization’s activities in our nation’s inner cities. But before they could hold their event, they had to have their posters approved by the college administration. They were denied approval ostensibly because they presented only one side of the issue. In other words, the administration tried to force them to argue the side of the debate with which they disagreed.

The administration claimed that “biased” speech could lead to hate speech, which, in turn, could lead to genocide. Think about that for a second: if the pro-life group protested Planned Parenthood’s genocide, then genocide could result unless they also argued in favor of abortion.

Common sense alone should have reigned in the SFCC administration. But it required the intervention of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Washington Attorney General. In the end, the student pro-life group prevailed.

Later that semester, a student at Los Angeles Community College (LACC) was given a chance to speak on a topic of his own choosing. He chose to speak about the role God has played in his life. During the speech, he mentioned a Bible verse affirming the traditional definition of marriage. His professor was incensed. He abruptly ended the class and refused to grade the student’s speech.

After the ADF intervened, there was a successful federal injunction against the speech code that was used to punish the LACC student for uttering “offensive” speech. The matter should have ended there but it did not. The school appealed to the 9th Circuit, which ruled that the student did not have standing to challenge the speech code. It was a bizarre ruling, given that the student was, in fact, punished with public humiliation and withholding of credit for work he did in a class he paid to take. Then again, this was in the 9th Circuit.

Last year at Vanderbilt University, a homosexual student knowingly joined a student group espousing beliefs which he actively opposed. After he was predictably removed from the group, he complained to the university administration. This resulted in an investigation of several hundred student groups. In the wake of the investigation, Vanderbilt administrators began threatening to derecognize student groups that required members to adhere to specific beliefs. This bizarre belief-ban went even further. Vanderbilt began to threaten de-recognition of Christian groups that required leaders to lead Bible studies. It was so intrusive that it resulted in a letter of condemnation from 23 members of the United States Congress to the administration.

All of these cases show how identity politics, rooted in postmodernism, is destroying the marketplace of ideas at our nation’s colleges and universities. The lack of principle is seen in cases like Georgia Tech (see part one of this series) where feminists pretended to be offended by words they often use themselves. Their assault on “offensiveness” was shown to be contrived when their allies invoked racially offensive language to attack the opponents of the Georgia Tech speech code. Defenders of the speech code even superimposed swastikas on pictures of one of the Jewish plaintiffs.

The postmodern roots of identity politics show through in the cases I mentioned. In none of them was there any attempt to assert that the offending beliefs were untrue. They were simply determined (usually by white liberals) to be offensive to various disenfranchised groups said to lack the power to establish their own beliefs as “true.” At Georgia Tech it was women (feminist women). At SFCC it was blacks. At LACC and Vanderbilt it was homosexuals. In each case, postmodernism fueled a vicious assault on free speech in the name of group-based identity politics. In each case, there was a significant chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas, which no institution of higher learning can long withstand.

Public universities can be sued in federal court whenever they try to enforce overly broad speech codes. They may also be sued when their zeal to control student groups encroaches upon freedom of association. Private schools, on the other hand, are not bound by the First Amendment. But they are bound by moral considerations. If they tell students they promote a diversity of opinion, they should behave as if the First Amendment does, in fact, apply at their university. They should not use false promises of diversity to lure students into paying tens of thousands of dollars tuition per year.

But what are the requirements of a Christian university? I believe they are twofold: First, the Christian university must remain Christian. That means certain core beliefs are taken off the table as un-debatable. Belief in the deity of Christ and His resurrection are among those beliefs.

Second, the Christian university must remain a university. And that requires the maintenance of robust debate on the vast majority of the controversial issues of the day. It also means that student groups must be given wide latitude in writing their own constitutions, selecting their own leaders, and sponsoring their own events.

In John 14:6, Christ claimed that there is but one path to heaven. No greater affirmation of objective truth is needed. Christianity is and will always be a religion predicated upon individual, not group, salvation. In Galatians 3:28, Paul affirms what Christ was saying: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Christianity has no room for postmodernists. They should be left to enjoy their speech code-enforced dominance within the shallow halls of the secular university.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---