Understanding The History: Abortion 101

I know this is a more reading than you want. Heck, my ADD prevents me from reading most anything longer than one page UNLESS I find it fascinating or very important. To me all of this fits both bills.

While on one hand I tend to think our nation has "progressed" too far to ever turn back. On the other hand I know that with God all things are possible. What I am getting at is the possibility of eliminating abortion from our country...and the world.

This issue has a long and ugly history in our country. To understand how it came about you must read the following articles:

The History of Planned Parenthood: When reading this article if you come across a term you don't understand Google it! Learn about things like eugenics and the Supreme Court case of Buck v Bell. If you thought the Nazis were the authors of ethnic cleansing you don't know your history.

Margaret Sanger's focus was not to promote birth rates among the nations educated elite, but rather eliminating births among those deemed unfit, or as she called them "slum mothers". If you think that was then, but things are different now, here are just a couple of examples:

Hillary Clinton praised Margaret Sanger when she received Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger award in April of 2009 saying, "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision ... "

Or the interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg in the New York Times, July 2009. I've linked to it and the quote I use below is found at the top of page 4, but I recommend you back up to page 3 and read a couple of questions that lead up to her giving the answer. In answering about a case that upheld the Hyde Amendment which prohibits abortion funding for Medicaid, Justice Ginsberg tells how she was surprised by the ruling because she thought that Roe v Wade was intended to be for the poor. Why did she think that (emphasis mine):

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

How about the fact that President Obama's advisor for Science and Technology co-wrote a book called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; in which he discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation including enforced population controls, like forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, placing sterilants in the nations water supply or ever better, forced abortions for certain undesirables.

This only scratches the surface of the evil behind what has cleverly been branded health and reproductive rights.

It's Sundown in America

Honestly; does this sound like the America you want? Again, I appeal to common sense. Even if you do not believe in The one true God or any god, must you also take that right away from those who do? Yes, you have to take that right away because it is afforded all Americans in the US Constitution.

Following an ACLU lawsuit filed against Santa Rosa School district in Florida, Judge M. Casey Rodgers ruled to deny prayer in the counties schools. Evidently the school district decided to come to an agreement with the ACLU without fighting it, also called a consent decree. Trying to overturn the decree one of the teachers gave this testimony:

During testimony in December, Michelle Winkler broke down on the witness stand when describing how a coworker sought comfort from her after losing her two-year-old child. The two hid behind a closet door to pray because they feared the consent decree. Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified the order forces her to tell parents she cannot respond if they talk about church or their faith. She may not even respond to an email from a parent if it contains a Scripture verse or “God bless you.” Instead, the District requires her to open a separate email to respond rather than hit “reply,” in order to eliminate any trace of religious language.

Also:

• School employees are prohibited from “communication with a deity” when in their “official capacity.”
  
• They are considered to be in their “official capacity” even when not working – whenever they attend a “school event,” which includes events during the day, including breaks, after-school events on or off campus, and privately sponsored events on campus for students.
  
• Employees cannot bow their head or fold their hands and must prohibit others from praying, even in meetings such as Good News Clubs or privately sponsored baccalaureate services.

I mean come on! You may not believe in God, you may want to have all personal prayer banned from public school, but are you brave enough to say that this cannot happen because the US Constitution protects it?!

The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Scientific Censorship

I keep writing on this theme, but that is because again and again and again I am seeing old long held scientific theories of the origins of life and of evolution fall into greater doubt. Yet another one is now falling away and that is the idea that the first life arose in tidal pools in a theory widely known as primordial soup. Here is a good article that is a quick read which gets to the heart of the issue: New Research Rejects 80-year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life.

I've written about the fallen long held theory of dinosaur to bird evolution. I've shown the debacle behind the hype of "Ida" and also how vested interests are the enemy of sound science. Just click on the "Science" label on the right hand menu of this blog to read what I'm talking about.

When I first saw the title of the article rejecting the primordial soup theory I was excited, but quickly I realized why a secular scientific journal would allow it to be published. The reason? Because in it's place another BS theory was introduced. The fact is the scientists have had no success in remotely replicating or proving the primordial soup theory. They continued for years and each attempt met failure. The only way they are willing to move away from it was if they could come up with another theory that not only would buy more time, but also wouldn't challenge their preconceived idea as to what they need the end result to be. And so instead of life arising in primordial tidal pools they give us the alternative theory that (drum roll) life arose from gases and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by "mother Earth" at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.

So we go from primordial soup to primordial vents?

This science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming about in the absence of a living Creator falls short of reality. This failure will not be due to the quality of the science, but rather because their goal is to discard anything the doesn't fit into the particular belief system of the scientific elite. Censorship never leads to good science.

Pro-Choice Hypocrisy

If you've been following the uproar over the not yet released Tim Tebow Superbowl ad, you've seen the hypocrisy of the pro-choice advocates; at least in their leadership and spokes persons. To me it unveils the true intentions of the so-called pro-choice lobby. They are not pro-choice at all, but rather pro-abortion. This is something I have written about time and time again.

At the time of this posting this ad has only been seen by it's producers and some of the execs at CBS. Yet, even though the pro-choice lobby hasn't seen it (and they admit they haven't seen it) they know they hate it, making claims that it aims to "deny a woman's right to choose". This is ridiculous. The ad tells the story of a woman who did choose and her choice was to give birth to the baby rather than abort it, even against the advice of her doctors. That's it!

The pro-choice movement isn't interested in choice at all. They want you to get an abortion, period. They are consumed with the "right" to control life and death and by doing so, to me, they reveal their true intentions. Complete autonomy. I see the world through spiritual eyes and it is the same lie that caused the fall of the first man and woman; the promise of being a god.

Here is a great article from the Washington Post to read and I've also linked to a video interview that shows the extent the pro-choice lobby will go to make their point. I know that there are many ordinary people who are pro-choice that have no issue with a positive story that celebrates the CHOICE of life. But there is an element within the pro-life movement that is focused on death. They err towards death at every opportunity and to them I say, may God have mercy.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video, but here is the link.