babyThe Issue

Several years back I wrote a series of post on abortion (Here is the first post => WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ABORTION? — PART 1). I put a lot of work into it, but it did not get a lot of hits.  I guess, even though I am not a Bible scholar, it came across as too scholarly and ivory tower.

Regardless of what we say, when most of us surf the web, we want something bite-size and personally relevant. Life, however, does not necessarily give simple, easy problems. It only gives us what looks like easy choices, like that choice favored by the Pro-Choice crowd.

How Do We Choose?

You are a man. You get your girl-friend pregnant. You are that girl-friend. He doesn’t want the child. If you have the child, you could have a 20-year obligation. If you don’t have the child, it is just gone? Not exactly, and the longer you live the better and more painfully you will understand the consequences of making the wrong choice.

altruistico is doing a series on abortion. His series deals directly with that Pro-Life/Pro-Choice choice. Since ‘s series deals directly with the choice we have to make, I suspect his readers will find his series more personally relevant.

Here is what has thus far posted.

If you have any doubts that unfairly presents what the Bible has to say about abortion, then please consider my poor series on the subject as a place to start your investigation. I did my best to consider both sides of the issue. To my surprise, I discovered the Pro-Choice scholarship on this issue plainly unworthy of any respect.

The 2016 Presidential Election

Please note that abortion will be an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election. We have a candidate that is so rabidly Pro-Choice she has announced her intention to select judges who put their personal “life experience” ahead of what the Constitution actually says.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said in the Second Presidential Debate about her selection criteria for judges.

This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real life experience. Who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried more cases. Actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn’t agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. That we don’t do always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald put forth of the names of people he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because you are wealthy and you can give more money to something doesn’t mean you have more rights or should have any more rights than anything else. (from here)

Given Hillary Clinton speaks out of both sides of her mouth, we can disregard her comments about corporate interests. However, Planned Parenthood has supported her campaign, and that support does interest H. Clinton.

Here is Donald Trump’s statement on abortion.

If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions. (from here)

Trump has already given us a list from which he would make his judicial picks. See for yourself. See what Trump has to say about the Constitution and Second Amendment.


vote for america

UPDATE: Check out Keith DeHavelle‘s comment here. It adds considerable firepower to this post. I also suggest you visit his blog.  What he posts is definitely worth stopping by to read.

What caused me to write this post? I am usually quite content to let the comments I receive drive my the subject of my posts, and this one is driven by quite a few.

Does Planned Parenthood Use Taxpayer Funds To Pay For Abortions?

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. (origin)

When I advocated cutting Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, insanitybytes22 quite reasonably observed that because it is illegal to use Federal funds to pay for abortions, the bill before Congress would not do anything (comment here). Since is a smart lady, I was kind of puzzled. That did not square with the controversy in Congress. Fortunately, Keith DeHavelle added some clarification to the matter (comment here). So I was fairly satisfied I was on the right track. Nevertheless, when I got a comment from Steven Hoyt (here) stating unequivocally that  “NO federal funds are used for abortion aside from incest, rape, and endangerment to the mother,” I decided it was time to post something.

If you google “the hyde amendment banned the use of federal funds for abortions,” what you will get is a bunch of organization whining on how the Hyde Amendment violates women’s rights. This law prevent Federal funds from paying for abortions. If you want to know when the so-called Pro-Choice crowd thinks, click on the link.

This excerpt from is especially ironic.

The Hyde Amendment has a disproportionate impact on women of color, both because women of color are more likely to live in poverty and to rely on Medicaid for health care, and because women of color are also more likely to seek abortion care.  (from here)

Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood as a eugenics program design to get rid of colored people (see GROSSU: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire).

So how does Planned Parenthood use the money we give them? It is just a matter how they account for the money. They say they don’t use Federal funds to pay for abortions. Here are some articles on the subject. Because the Liberals own the media and clutter both the air waves and the Internet with nonsense, it takes more effort to find a Conservative viewpoint.

What the articles above illustrate is how some people view telling the truth.

It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. — Bill Clinton (from here)

In part two, I intend to respond to some of commenters on THE PRECIOUS HUMAN LIFE AND THE ABORTION FACTOR.

Steven Hoyt started a debate over the value of voting. I tend to think the fact we have to debate such a thing amazingly stupid, but it is common enough for Christians to want nothing to do with the dirty business of politics. It is, after all, a dirty business. Don’t we have to work with other disagreeable human beings?

Keith DeHavelle is very knowledgeable and erudite. So I will steal some more of his material.

exploringthegreatknown writes with a special degree of kindness and gentleness, and is unafraid to reference the Bible. I hope to incorporate some his thoughts and add my own perspective.

Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to add their own two cents, please do so.


fatherLook in the newspaper, glance at the television, or just sit in the mall and watch people. What is missing? More and more often, we miss seeing the leadership of a strong, caring and decent man. Here of late, it has become all too obvious we are missing political leadership. Instead of crafting laws designed to make our people strong and independent, our leaders grasp for power — no matter what the cost. To steal a billion dollars for their patrons, the greedy sort who fund negative political campaigns, they waste 10 billion.

We have had so many scandals coming out of the Obama administration we cannot track of them anymore. It almost seems as if they create new scandals to distract and confuse us from the old ones.  What do we know about?

  • Bowe Bergdahl and terrorists
  • The Veterans Administration and waiting lists
  • IRS and Tea Party/Conservative Organizations
  • Benghazi, Libya and a dead American ambassador
  • So-called global warming and costly electrical power
  • Fast and Furious and illegal arms sales
  • The NSA and Snowden
  • James Rosen, the AP, and government surveillance
  • Demands for donations from businesses regulated by the HHS
  • Sumptuous training conferences for government employees
  • Same-sex weddings and the Constitution
  • Executive orders and the limits of presidential power
  • 2000 page bills no congressman reads and tens of thousands of pages of indecipherable regulations that will stifle our economy
  • The New Black Panthers and your right to vote
  • And so forth

Any one of these scandals — by itself — should have raised the ire of our nation. Yet the cumulative affect of a couple of dozen has been a bewildered yawn. Will we let a gift of God; the republic that once protected the lives and liberties of our families, friends and neighbors; die and only express confused indifference?

The answer begins (and began) at home. Are you a man? Are you a father? Have you tried to be a good father? Have you succeeded? If you think you have room for improvement (And don’t we all?), then check out Rob Barkman‘s post, Father’s Day Devotion – Leadership. Here is how it begins.

Our families are falling apart due to a lack of Godly leadership. Our political world is crying out for a sincere, honest leader.  Churches are falling into error and modernism because they have no strong leader to show them the right way.  Our world is crying out for genuine leadership.

Before I go any farther, it is important for me to define what I mean by a “genuine leader”….

What makes up a genuine leader for our families, governments and churches?  I believe a genuine leader is someone who will seek to follow the Lord’s will in every decision that he makes; someone who loves those he is responsible to lead; someone who will ALWAYS put his personal interests second to the interest of those he is leading; someone who will attempt to work for our peace while not sacrificing our security in the process; and  finally, someone who seeks our prosperity, not leading us to take advantage of others, but by leading us to prosper through honesty, quality, innovation and productivity.   (I’m sure we could all add several other qualities to this list… but I think you “get my drift”!) (continued here)

 is first and foremost a teacher of the Bible. Using the words of Jesus, he continues, and he reminds us of what it means to be a leader.


freedomconscienceIt was only after I posted it I realized I had made a mistake. When I posted BECOMING SECULAR, I should have added it to the series I had started, OF TWISTED WORDS.

How have we twisted the word “secular?” Well, according to the dictionary the word secular pertains “to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.” However, as the examples given in BECOMING SECULAR demonstrate, “becoming secular” is a religious choice. When we hear so and so is “becoming more secular,” don’t we know that means?

Fortunately, two commenters wanted to debate.  So they gave me an excuse to add the word “secular” to the OF TWISTED WORDS series.


hessianwithteeth has two problems with BECOMING SECULAR (his comments are here, here, here, here and here).

  • He takes issue with the fact that I supposedly called him a fool.
  • As an atheist, he does not believe the Bible. That is, there is no God, and the Bible is not His Word.

Did I Call  A Fool?

Did I call  a fool? No. What I said in BECOMING SECULAR is that becoming secular through indifference, ignoring God, is foolish.   says he has studied the matter carefully and determined that God does not exist. That is not the same thing as “becoming secular.” Instead of ignoring God,  has deliberately turned his back to God, saying He does not exist.  calls himself an atheist, and an atheist is someone who has made a conscious decision that God does not exist. God, not me, calls atheists fools.

Psalm 14:1 New King James Version (NKJV)

14 The fool has said in his heart,

There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

In fact, both Psalms 14 and 53 make it quite clear that God has a low opinion of those who turn away from Him. Nevertheless, I have no idea what is in ‘s heart, and it is not my place to judge anyone.  I can only look at a man’s deeds, and I know next to nothing of ‘s deeds.

Does God Exist?

Can I prove the Bible is the Word of God? To some people? Maybe. To ? That depends upon him.

As a practical matter, we each allow the Bible either prove or disprove itself. If we study the Bible carefully and objectively, I think most of us will accept the Bible as true. Nothing else besides the Bible provides an explanation for why we exist and why we are as we are that makes any real sense. Unfortunately, we are lazy. Relative few actively study the Bible, and no one who has studied the Bible remains objective.

In this comment lists some of his objections. They illustrate some knowledge of the Bible, enough knowledge that he has lost his objectivity.

  •  wants independent proof, a report from somebody who is neither christian/jewish nor roman (stipulated in a latter comment).  That sounds reasonable, but it is not. Luke was a Greek. He wrote one of the four Gospels and Acts, and he believed. So he became a Christian. Thus, because Luke believed,   disqualifies him.
  •  does not find it odd that people converted to Christianity. He compares Christians to the Jewish Zealots. Yet any historian, which  claims to be, should able to observe just how unique Jewish history is and that there is something incredible about the spread of Christianity. In spite every attempt to destroy the Jewish people, they remain, and Christianity spreads through the blood of martyrs, not the sword.
  •  offers as argument that morality existed long before the Bible (and he considers the subject further on his blog, Do We Require Religion to be Moral?). It is true that morality existed before the Bible. God existed long before the Bible. As the Apostle Paul observed:

    Romans 2:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

    14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

    What is relevant about Christianity is how much people’s morality improves when they become devout Christians. Consider, for example, that it was in Christian lands that governments first abolished slavery. In the 1850’s who other than a Christian writer could have written this paragraph and been taken seriously by millions?

    “My view of Christianity is such,” he added, “that I think no man can consistently profess it without throwing the whole weight of his being against this monstrous system of injustice that lies at the foundation of all our society; and, if need be, sacrificing himself in the battle. That is, I mean that I could not be a Christian otherwise, though I have certainly had intercourse with a great many enlightened and Christian people who did no such thing; and I confess that the apathy of religious people on this subject, their want of perception of wrongs that filled me with horror, have engendered in me more skepticism than any other thing.” (from UNCLE TOM’S CABIN or Life among the Lowly by Harriet Beecher Stowe)

    Because we live in a large nation where almost everyone has a Christian heritage, we don’t understand the significance of that heritage. Because those people are far away, few appreciate the reason for the relative lawlessness in other lands. Those people don’t share our Christian heritage. And fewer still have studied our ancestors well enough to appreciate the civilizing influence of Jesus Christ’s teachings. Through Jesus, we learned just how much God loves us.


scout objected to my observation that we have twisted the meaning of the word “secular.” Instead, he said the dictionary definition of the word remains true. He also said that we can easily distinguish the religious from the secular (his relevant comments are hereherehere, and here). The second paragraph in ‘s first comment probably best summarizes his argument.

But the post seems to go off the rails (for me, at any rate), where it equates secular content with an active decision to ignore religious issues (or God Himself, as you appear to say). At that point, I think you begin to mis-use the term “secular” and are confusing it with concepts such as atheism or agnosticism. There are many religious people (I count myself among them) who view the religious/secular distinction as an extremely important protection of religious life. Keep the base and the worldly in their appropriate context. Let spiritual issues, issues that are not of this world prosper in their appropriate sphere. I view this distinction as important, as a practical matter, to protect religion and religious expression. In this country, it was part of the great genius of the Founders that they permitted that distinction to take root and thrive, thus avoiding the debasement of religion by political leaders such as had occurred in Europe in their times and continues in many places today. The distinction also has strong Scriptural foundation for Christians, although other religions also benefit from observing clear distinctions between secular and religious activities.

Did I misused the term “secular?” Read the post BECOMING SECULAR, and judge for yourself. Let’s consider here ‘s effort to divide Creation into distinct secular and religious spheres or compartments. To the Christian, that should make no sense. As a practical matter, we do not even have what the dictionary would describe as a secular government. We have a government that is suppose to recognize the fact that our rights are God-given. Unfortunately, due to the fact that our parents allowed politicians to supervise our education, we have forgotten the intent behind the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “(from here). That means no one should use the power of the government to either to establish a religion or stop anybody from practicing their religion.

Why such an attitude towards government power? Why such a deliberate effort to keep government from interfering with religion? Christians believe in glorifying God in all things.  Depending upon the translation, that phrase “all things” occurs often, 201 times in the Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV). Sometimes that phrase says we should glorify God in “all things.”

1 Peter 4:11 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

What do numerous passages tell us what should be our primary occupation? Consider this one.

Matthew 6:19-21 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Hence, the Founders structured our government to prevent it from interfering with religion, not to use secularism or some other excuse to suppress it.

Why would someone want to suppress Christianity? The Bible reminds us of just how awful we can be. In one of his complaints about the Bible,  observed that God seems to approve of some very bad things. Oddly, considering he says he is a historian,   forgets that the Bible records quite a bit of history, often just saying what happened. Much of the Bible is also a Book of Law. Making laws appropriate for the ancient Jews, trying to civilize a stiff-necked people — like us — sometimes forced God to compensate for our hard hearts. So He allowed the Jews to divorce their wives, keep slaves, and have a king to rule over them, but He did not approve of any of these things. He simply made laws that softened the affects of our sins.

Civilizing human beings is very difficult. We too often want to do very bad things, and sometime we revert to savagery. Consider how far back to our savage nature we have already gone.

In the following passage, G.K. Chesterton talks about the religion practice by the ancient Carthaginians. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The Phoenicians, the folks who gave us our alphabet, are apparently one of the Canaanite Peoples the Hebrews should have destroyed when they took over the Holy Land.

In a previous chapter I have hinted at something of the psychology that lies behind a certain type of religion. There was a tendency in those hungry for practical results, apart from poetical results, to call upon spirits of terror and compulsion; to move Acheron in despair of bending the Gods. There is always a sort of dim idea that these darker powers will really do things, with no nonsense about it. In the interior psychology of the Punic peoples this strange sort of pessimistic practicality had grown to great proportions. In the New Town, which the Romans called Carthage, as in the parent cities of Phoenicia, the god who got things done bore the name of Moloch, who was perhaps identical with the other deity whom we know as Baal, the Lord. The Romans did not at first quite know what to call him or what to make of him; they had to go back to the grossest myth of Greek or Roman origins and compare him to Saturn devouring his children. But the worshippers of Moloch were not gross or primitive. They were members of a mature and polished civilisation, abounding in refinements and luxuries; they were probably far more civilised than the Romans. And Moloch was not a myth; or at any rate his meal was not a myth. These highly civilised people really met together to invoke the blessing of heaven on their empire by throwing hundreds of their infants into a large furnace. We can only realise the combination by imagining a number of Manchester merchants with chimney-pot hats and mutton-chop whiskers, going to church every Sunday at eleven o’clock to see a baby roasted alive. (from Everlasting Man (1925) by Chesterton, Gilbert Keith (1874-1936))

The ancient Romans utterly destroyed Carthage.

Referring to it as a secular practice, denying the humanity of the unborn, we sacrifice infants today. We don’t overtly call an abortion a sacrificial offering; we deny the practice might have any entertainment value. Nonetheless, trying to elevate the practice — making every taxpayer an accomplice — abortion supporters fight tooth and nail for public funding. Hence, to satisfy the demands of our “secular” government, abortion supporters deny the possibility that an unborn baby — a miracle of life — has any religious significance.