Are you really pro-life? By Chris Johnson

One of the things that’s the hardest to understand about atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rwanda genocide or other ethnic “cleansing” atrocities is the question of how the ordinary, uninvolved citizen allowed it to happen. When your neighbors are being pulled into the streets and butchered or hauled off by police and never returning, how do you just go on with your life? It’s difficult to comprehend how those people just sat back and allowed it to happen when we are now part of one of the most civil societies known to man.

But maybe it’s not so hard to understand after all. According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of voters now call themselves pro-choice, while only 38% identify as pro-life.

So, that’s pretty depressing, huh? Sounds like those of us who see unborn babies as people are now in the minority.

Except we’re not. Rasmussen polled voters, but are you ready to be sick to your stomach? Gallup released a poll of the general public in May of this year stating that the pro-life position is actually more popular than the pro-choice position. By nine points, 50% to 41%.

That should even make pro-choicers sick. That means that millions of people who recognize  a yet- to-be-born baby as a person couldn’t be bothered to go draw a line on a piece of paper to possibly save those little people’s lives.

Once every four years we get an opportunity to elect leadership that finds dismembering babies to be heinous and put an end to the practice, but many of the people who recognize that that is occurring in America can’t be bothered even to vote.

Let’s look at those numbers for a second. The population of the USA today is 311 million, so if 50% of Americans are pro-life, that comes to about 155 million. And, according to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, about 126 million out the 311 million Americans voted. 38% of the 126 million voters would equal roughly 48 million pro-life voters.

Now, Rasmussen‘s poll was of likely voters, not of actual voters and, of course, the 155 million pro-lifers in America are not all eligible voters. So there’s quite a bit of wiggle room to my math, but no matter how much it wiggles there’s no getting past the fact that tens of millions of pro-life Americans couldn’t turn out to vote to put an end to what they believe (and I agree) is killing babies. And many may have voted for the guy who whole-heartedly supports it.
Is it so easy to condemn the Germans who watched the Holocaust happen and did nothing when many Americans are doing the exact same thing now?

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1606

We Could End Abortion ‘Overnight’—If We Really Wanted To

If every Sunday, in every pulpit, in every evangelical church across America, ministers would devote one minute—ONE MINUTE—to decrying the evil of abortion on demand, such universal solidarity within the ranks of Christian leadership would accomplish two things, maybe three.

First, it would dispel ambiguity and send a clear signal to every pew-sitting believer that this is a top-line priority with God, not a fine-print codicil, not “one more good thing that Christians ought to do when they have time.”

Second, it would foster unanimity amongst all believers—at least on this one all-important issue—and enable us together to render unto God what is God’s (i.e., sufficient advocacy at the ballot box to getRoe overturned) while at the same time rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s—which, don’t forget, includes the advice and consent of “the governed.”

And third, maybe, just maybe the voice of conscience would become less easily ignored by those outside the church and we would see abortion on demand outlawed, not only in America, but around the world—“overnight.”

But it’s a big “if.” After all, how many ministers can spare a whole minute?

Read More: http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/breakpoint-features-archive/entry/12/19080

http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1604

First, I Chose Life and Truth, Which Leads Me In the Right Way!

John 14:5-7 (KJV)

⁵ Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

⁶ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

I just came back from voting, and it really was a no brainer!  Anyone who values what God says, will always go for the candidate that sides with preserving life of an unborn child, over abortion, any time.  If you call yourself a Christian, and you choose a candidate who is pro-choice, stands for abortion, and has proven they are supporting the Planned Parenthood organization, then all I have to say is, you need to re-evaluate you standing with God.  You need a closer walk, and talk, with Him, so He can show you the error of your ways.

I feel good that I went online, and chose all the candidates that are first, and foremost, pro-life.  Yes, I’m not naive enough to think they may be just saying things to get into office, and then change what they stand for, politicians do that, but that’s between them and God, and they will have to answer to Him on judgement day.  I can only go by what I prayed about, and sought God for, and my voting, and I chose to vote pro-life in my voting, because my motto is, “Where’s there’s LIFE, there’s always HOPE!”

My hope is not in this world anymore.  My hope is in my Heavenly Father above.  He gives me the hope I need every day, when things look bleak, and I am in pain from my migraines, or my feet, and hands are hurting, tingling, or numb.  I know that one day I won’t feel this anymore, because he is going to call me to my Heavenly home on high, as long as I stay true to Him, do what I can to witness for Him, here on earth.  That’s why I use this blog to get whatever kind of message I can to people about the wonderful love of God.  I also use my facebook to do so, and started a facebook for my church.  I want to spread God’s word, and love, as much as possible, to as many people as possible.

I don’t know how many people really read what I put on here, and maybe I will never know, but if what I put on this blog brings one lost soul to Christ, it is well worth all the time I put into it.  This is for God’s glory, not mine, and I do this, because I felt led by God to start this blog, since I can’t work right now, and this is the best way I can reach people to witness for Him.  I hope I inspire someone to not just sit on the sidelines.  Everyone can do something for God’s kingdom. No one is worthless, or useless!  God can, and will use everyone, all you have to do is give Him you heart, and life, and see what wonderful things God will do in your life!

Abortion is 27 Percent of Deaths in England, Wales: 189,000 Babies Terminated in 2010 in UK By Myles Collier , Christian Post Contributor

Disturbing Report Makes Legislators Rethink Abortion Limits.

There are disturbing reports coming from England and Wales as  national statistics show that more than a quarter of all deaths in the countries  are caused by abortions.

The numbers were released by the Office for National Statistics of the U.K. and offers a  complete accounting of the mortality statistics for all deaths that occurred in  2010.

The report was divided into two parts; major causes of death and death from  external causes. The report listed the total number of deaths and the resulting  cause or factor.

The report listed a total of 493,242 deaths in England and Wales from “all  causes” in 2010. This number includes 224 babies who died “before, during or  after birth.” However, the 224 babies who died were not represented in the  189,574 human deaths from abortion in England and Wales in 2010.

Adding the total number of pre-born babies who died as a result of abortion  in 2010 to the total number of human deaths in England and Wales for that same  year produces an overall total of 682,816 deaths.

This leads to 27 percent or 189,574 of the 682,816 deaths being caused by  abortion.

Recently, several top British government officials have proposed and endorsed  calls to lower the current abortion limit of 24 weeks to a new limit of 12  weeks.

Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s new health secretary, explained that while he  understands the seriousness concerning this debate, he feels that reducing the  time limit from 24 weeks to 12 weeks is the right point to start with when  considering the moment life starts.

“Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when they think  that moment is, and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it … It  is just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that  we should deem life to start,” Hunt told The Sunday Times U.K. during an  interview.

Hunt did not cite any specific scientific evidence to explain his position,  nor did he assume any religious motives for his statement.

“It’s just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment  that we should deem life to start. I don’t think the reason I have that view is  for religious reasons,” Hunt said.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/abortion-is-27-percent-of-deaths-in-england-wales-189000-babies-terminated-in-2010-83726/#hlSYL8fwaQdujvBV.99

Steven Tyler’s Ex-Fiancée Reveals How Their Abortion ‘Nearly Destroyed’ Them By Stoyan Zaimov , Christian Post Reporter

The ex-fiancée of Aerosmith frontman and American Idol judge  Steven Tyler will speak at the Life Legal Defense Foundation annual dinner to  share her story about how the couple aborted their child in the 1970s; a  decision that she says “nearly destroyed them.”

Julia Holcomb said in preparation of the Nov. 17 dinner due to take  place in Santa Clara, California: “I pray that all those who have had abortions  or have participated in any way in an abortion procedure may find in my story,  not judgment or condemnation, but a renewed hope in God‘s steadfast love,  forgiveness and peace. Marriage and the family are the building blocks of all  virtuous societies. I pray that our nation may find its way back to God’s plan  by respecting the life of unborn children and strengthening the sanctity of  marriage.”

The LLFD notes that Tyler himself has admitted his regret over the abortion  decision in the book Walk this Way: The Autobiography of Aerosmith.  Holomb began living with Tyler when she was only 16 while he was 27. Together  they experienced hardships that led to Holomb having an abortion, which Tyler  admits “really messed (him) up.”

“It was a big crisis. It’s a major thing when you’re growing something with a  woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our  lives. . . . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they  squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty  devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?” the singer writes in his autobiography.

Holcomb only recently came out publicly about her experience, after she  converted to Catholicism and joined the “Silent No More” organization of women  who have regretted their abortions. She uses her experience to help young women  who have suffered sexual exploitation or faced “the tragedy of abortion.”

In her testimony, which she published online, Holcomb shares with readers many aspects  of her life with Tyler and the family drama that threatened to split them apart,  as well as the devastating fire in 1975 that burned down their home and left  Holcomb in a hospital suffering from damage to the lungs. All those issues were  factors that contributed to the young couple opting for an abortion when she was  five-months pregnant.

However, after they separated, Holomb notes that the Aerosmith frontman went  on to say many negative things about her in his book, presenting her more as a  sex object than a real human being.

“In spite of everything, I do not hate Steven Tyler, nor am I personally  bitter,” Holcomb insists in her testimony. “I pray for his sincere conversion of  heart and hope he can find God’s grace. I know that I am also responsible for  what happened that day. Someone may say that my abortion was justified because  of my age, the drugs, and the fire. I do not believe anything can justify taking  my baby’s life. The action is wrong. I pray that our nation will change its laws  so that the lives of innocent unborn babies are protected.”

The LLDF have welcomed Holcomb’s testimony and said that her story can be  seen as a positive model for change and redemption.

“The Life Legal Defense Foundation stands up for those who speak out to save  innocent lives and prevent women from experiencing suffering as Julia Holcomb  did following her abortion,” said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life  Legal Defense Foundation. “Julia’s story is cruel and tragic, but she has turned  her sorrow into a force for positive, life-saving change. LLDF is pleased to be  able to provide an opportunity for her to encourage and motivate those who are  fighting to prevent the kind of horror that she lived through.”

http://global.christianpost.com/news/steven-tylers-ex-fiancee-reveals-how-their-abortion-nearly-destroyed-them-83530/cpf#O4dW7dMq9TAk75Zg.99

Ohio Cases Put Molesters and Planned Parenthood On Notice

Two Ohio court rulings make it more difficult for men to molest young girls and then use Planned Parenthood’s abortion services to cover their tracks.

One case, Fairbanks v. Planned Parenthood S.W. Ohio Region, concerned a 16-year-old girl impregnated by her biological father. A more recent case, Doe (Wallace) v. Planned Parenthood S.W. Ohio Region,focused on a 14-year-old girl impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach.

In the Fairbanks case, the 16-year-old girl told a Planned Parenthood employee she had been forced “to do things [she] didn’t want to do.” Under Ohio law, this statement triggered Planned Parenthood’s duty to report, which Planned Parenthood ignored.

As a result of Planned Parenthood’s silence, the girl continued to endure molestation from her father for another year and half.

In the Doe case, the ease with which Planned Parenthood policies allowed circumvention of Ohio’s parental notification laws came into stark relief.

A soccer coach who began having sex with his female player was able to get around the notification laws by providing Planned Parenthood with his own cell number. He then acted as if he was the girl’s father when the abortionists called, and that was that. Planned Parenthood knew that a cell phone call did not satisfy the requirements of the law, but apparently it was satisfactory enough for the abortion giant’s bottom line, so the statutory rape went unreported.

Although the outcomes of these two cases did not result in direct, court-ordered obligations on Planned Parenthood, they are catalysts for changes in Ohio law that will make it harder for molesters and those like Planned Parenthood who try to protect them.

For example, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in Ohio won’t be able to remain quiet when a 16-year-girl tells them what a man is doing to her in the future. Minors who are the victims of sexual abuse can now bring civil action claims against individuals who breach their duty to report the abuse, and they can now seek punitive damages against individuals and entities that breach their duties to report the abuse as well.

Children who find themselves in the position of the 14-year-old soccer player will be better protected, too, as Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers must now take commonsense steps to make absolutely sure parents are taking part in the life-ending decisions their minor children are thinking about making. These steps include obtaining written consent from at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor.

In addition, Planned Parenthood also has to face the fact that the ruling recognized a nationally renowned and “pro-choice psychologist who truthfully admitted that girls and women who have abortions can and do sometimes suffer from long-term and serious psychological problems as a result of abortions.”

The anonymity molesters have enjoyed in the past while carrying out their misdeeds in the state of Ohio should now be much more difficult to maintain. And that’s good news for everyone, and especially for the vulnerable, who are now better protected.

Brett Harvey

Brett Harvey is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brettharvey/2012/10/05/ohio_cases_put_molesters_and_planned_parenthood_on_notice/page/full/

 

Problems Solutions and Trade Offs II

Most of my columns are meant to expose the hypocrisy of self-described liberals who have taken over our institutions of higher learning. However, on some occasions, I attempt to address misguided thinking among self-described conservatives. An example is my recent column “Romney and the Rapist,” which was described by many readers as either “weird” or “convoluted” or both. Those descriptions are indeed accurate and reflect the intention behind the controversial essay. It was my intention to write a column that would identify absurd arguments as a means of drawing out the flawed reasoning of those who would support Romney’s proposed rape exception to a law banning abortion. I elaborate on each flaw below:

 

1. Viability and Humanity.Many of my readers were upset by my suggestion that the idea of killing the innocent product of rape because it reminded the victim of rape could also be used to justify killing an innocent man who bore a physical resemblance to the rapist. Readers stated that the “obvious” difference was that the product of rape was attached to the woman and dependent upon her for survival (whereas the rapist’s double was unattached to the victim). That is nothing more than a restatement of the viability argument used to deny the humanity of the unborn and, therefore, provide abortion on demand, not just in instances of rape. It is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether the product of rape is an innocent human being. Once again, those who seek to justify the rape exception undermine the initial rule against abortion, without which no exception could exist. That rule is predicated upon the simple principle that killing innocent human beingsis wrong. Once we abandon the rule and fashion an exception we enter dangerous territory. 

Those who raise the issue of viability must remain focused of the issue of innocence. That will lead to the correct conclusion that killing someone to assuage the painful memory of rape is only justifiable if that person is also responsible for the rape. Once again, my position is simple: execute the guilty perpetrator of rape, not the innocent product of rape. Although both are human beings, regardless of “viability,” one is guilty and the other is innocent. No other distinction matters. 

2. Consent and Punishments.Some readers responded by saying that the rule against abortion was justified only if the woman consented to the sex and that an exception is justified only because she did not. Such reasoning is both dangerous and irrelevant to the central issue in the abortion debate. 

To say that a woman must carry a baby to term only if she consented to sex is to equate the baby with punishment. Those who focus on consent are suggesting that the woman must be held accountable for her consensual sex acts but that she cannot be held accountable if she did not consent. This is the kind of moral reasoningthat leads even presidents to say they support abortion as a means of insulating their children from punishment. It is also dangerous ammunition for those who base their support for abortion on bodily autonomy. The bodily autonomy argument often relies on a distinction between consensual sex and consensual pregnancy. Proponents of this distinction say that a woman may have consented to sex but not to pregnancy and that, therefore, in the name of bodily autonomy, she is entitled to abort. Pro-lifers should not be enabling this kind of thinking by suggesting that the abortion debate centers around a woman’s consent. It does not. 

The question of whether a woman consented to sex has no bearing upon whether those conceived in the act are innocent human beings deserving of punishment. It is only relevant to the question of whether the man with whom she had sex is an innocent human being who deserves punishment. Pro-lifers intent on punishing women and/or innocent babies continue to suffer from deep moral confusion leading to profound moral inconsistency. 

3. Trauma and Solutions.We cannot come to a correct decision concerning the so called rape exception if we cannot draw a moral distinction between the crimes of rape and murder. A rape is a horrible thing but it is not the most horrible thing. The same Supreme Court that fashioned a right to abortion has said as much. That is why rapists are free from capital punishment, which is considered “disproportionate” punishment under the 8th Amendment. We may disagree but we may not have it both ways, which is what the defender of the status quo demands. 

Many of my readers fail to understand this. They have bombarded me with “arguments” such as “obviously, you have never been raped,” “obviously your wife has never been raped,” and “obviously you do not have daughters.’ Each of these arguments can be translated into “But rape is a really horrible thing.” I know that. But the dismemberment of an innocent human being is even worse than the rape of an innocent human being. A victim of the former cannot recover and lead a useful life while a victim of the latter can. 

Once again, conservatives are applying problem/solution analysis when they should be analyzing trade-offs. Pregnancy due to rape is a serious problem. But abortingthe innocent child instead of giving it up for adoption is not a solution to the problem. In fact, it will cause further emotional suffering. 

The trade-off is simple: When we ask a woman to give birth to a baby conceived in rape we are asking that woman to suffer for months in the wake of a life-changing painful event. But we do so to a) avoid the murder of the innocent, to b) give life to one who bears the image of Godbut not the guilt of the rapist, and to c) provide adopting couples with a child they would not otherwise have. 

As always, we must be guided by the simple principle that our moral lives are defined by the way we treat the innocent, not by the way the guilty have treated us. 

The experience of writing “Romney and the Rapist” has taught me two things about modern conservatives. The first is that many self-described conservatives are not really conservatives at all. They are morally confused libertarians who only ask whether something is free and not whether it is good. The second is that many conservatives espouse conservatism in isolation from a comprehensive worldview. That explains their failure to understand what makes human beings valuable and why taking innocent life is never to be taken lightly.

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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/09/10/problems_solutions_and_trade_offs_ii/page/full/

Problems Solutions and Trade Offs

Occasionally, a columnist must issue an apology for something he wrote that, while seeming correct at the time, later proved to be misguided. Today, is one of those occasions where I must take the time to write a retraction concerning a column I wrote some time ago. Although it has been roughly four years since the column appeared, I am still compelled to offer an apology.

The issue concerns the use of pictures of the aftermath of abortion and whether the pictures should be displayed on college campuses, which are obviously populated by scores of women who have, in fact, suffered through the trauma of abortion. Four years ago, I took the position that the pro-life movement should not be doing that. The publication of that opinion constituted a serious error of judgment on my behalf. Accordingly, I offer an apology to my readers as well as an explanation of how I arrived at that incorrect conclusion.

Liberals have a tendency to think in terms of problems and solutions, not in terms of tradeoffs. We see this all the time. A liberal will identify a social problem. Then, he will attempt to identify a solution. The bad news for the rest of us is that the liberal “solution” usually involves government intervention, not private initiative.

The “problem” I identified four years ago came from a survey on campus censorship – one that I gave in my Introduction to Criminal Justice class every semester. I simply asked which book they would like to see banned from the library and which person or group they would like to see banned from campus. I then moved into a discussion of how the growing tendency to censor (with government backing) threatens our campus environment.

For years, the KKK and the Black Panthers vied for first place among the groups my students would most like to ban from campus. Then, in 2008 I was hit with a shocking new development: students voted “pro-lifers” as the group they most wanted to see kicked off campus. Their reason was simple: they sometimes showed pictures of aborted babies.

I saw this as a “problem.” Therefore, I wrote suggesting a “solution.” The solution was that we, as pro-lifers, should voluntarily abandon the practice of showing such pictures on campus. I did not advocate government backed censorship – the kind of advocacy we expect to hear from liberals. I just thought that voluntary abandonment of the practice would be the best “solution.” In retrospect, the suggestion was more than just naïve. It was stupid. And I am very sorry I ever wrote the column.

Living in an imperfect world among fallen people does not generally facilitate finding solutions to problems. Life is not that simple. Instead, it involves the making of decisions involving trade-offs. The decision of whether pictures of aborted babies should be displayed – even on campuses among those who have experienced abortion – is no different. So I should not have approached the issue like the liberals analyzing things within a problem/solution framework. I should have examined the trade-offs.

Put simply, the use of graphic abortion pictures on college campuses will upset women who have had abortions. They will also upset men who have financed abortions – especially those who actively pressured women into having them. But a greater number of people will be awaked to the fact that abortion involves the dismemberment of innocent human beings. Confrontation with those pictures will put the lie to the assertion that the unborn is nothing more than a clump of cells. The confrontation will draw an unmistakable moral distinction between the picking of a scab and the termination of a pregnancy. There may be negative aspects to showing the pictures. But they are far outweighed by the information they convey and the moral impulse they compel.

Put simply, we cannot enable those who would deny the American Holocaust in order to reduce emotional discomfort. That is not an acceptable trade-off. It sounds more like a final solution.

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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/09/03/problems_solutions_and_trade_offs/page/full/

Legitimate Rape Arguments

Todd Akin’s grossly irresponsible remarks about “legitimate rape” and conception have received much media attention. As well they should. The sheer weirdness of the remarks calls into question both his intelligence and his personal integrity. How could someone conclude logically that a rape victim’s body has the capacity to prevent conception in the wake of sexual assault? And why would someone assert that the conclusion had been supported by doctors with whom he had spoken? Clearly, Akin contrived the idea on the spot and then contrived the claim that there were doctors who had informed and/or supported his assertion. All of this leads to the unmistakable conclusion that he is unfit for office and should, therefore, suspend his campaign immediately.

 

As a pro-life apologist, I am more than just disappointed with Todd Akin. I am also angry. Over the course of the summer, I gave seven speeches on abortion – all of which addressed the issue of the so- called rape exception, which first appeared in my native state of Mississippi seven years prior to Roe v. Wade. In all seven lectures, I urged students to use caution when talking about the sensitive issue of rape and abortion. But I urged them not to run from the issue. In fact, I went so far as to say that we cannot win the debate until we make a reasoned argument for banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

 

In the event that there are prospective Republican congressional candidates who want to argue the issue (on CNN or elsewhere), here is how I would advise broaching this difficult subject. I would also request that Todd Akin keep his mouth closed until he has finished reading the following guidelines for discussion of the so-called rape exception:

 

A. Assess your opponent’s true position. In all likelihood, the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in it. In order for there to be an exception to a rule banning abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases. Call them out on it. Tell them you will write the rape exception into law just as soon as they write the law banning all other abortions. They will never take you up on it. The reason is simple: they are lying. 

B. Build a bridge to the central issue. Get to know an adult who is a product of rape. Then, ask the proponent of the rape exception whether it would be permissible to kill your adult friend who is a product of rape. They will, of course, say that it isn’t permissible to kill them now. Ask them why not. They will likely say that killing the unborn is “different” because of size (they are smaller), level of development (they are less developed), environment (placement in the womb), or degree of dependency (the unborn are not “viable”). Each of these arguments is flawed and each tends to undermine human equality. For example, the argument that one’s right to life is contingent upon size means that women have less of a right to life than men. It also means Asians have less of a right to life than Caucasians. As you defeat each “that’s different” argument, you will gradually lead them to conclude that the unborn are indeed innocent human beingsand that there is no meaningful distinction between the terms “human being” and “person.” 

C. Capture the moral high ground. People often say there is a double standard is displayed by those who support the death penalty and oppose abortion. But that is absurd. A double standard exists when one applies two different standards to the same thing. Clearly, an unborn innocent is not “the same thing” as a convicted murderer. True moral inconsistency exists among those who would execute the product of rape while allowing the rapistto live. That moral inconsistency is enshrined in our current constitutional jurisprudence. The rape victim has a right to abort the product of rape because the unborn have no rights regardless of the circumstances of their conception. Yet the rapist has a constitutional right to be spared execution. It is simply morally indefensible to execute the innocent product of rape instead of the guilty perpetrator of rape. Ask the proponent of the so-called rape exception to defend killing the innocent and sparing the guilty. 

Getting in the driver’s seat on the abortion issue is important. Staying in the driver’s seat is just as important – especially when the conversation takes a turn toward the difficult cases of rape and incest. But you can do it without concocting false arguments that really only avoid the issue. It’s just as easy as learning your ABCs.

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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/08/27/legitimate_rape_arguments/page/full/

Moving Forward Doesn’t Mean Funding Planned Parenthood for President Obama’s Daughters

Editor’s note: This column was authored by Catherine Glenn Foster, Litigation Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

It seems that every day the effects of the culture of death on our society are more and more obvious, and more and more gruesome. Just take the continued funding of Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars.

This ongoing controversy was highlighted recently when President Barack Obama declared yet again that he wants to continue pumping our hard-earned money into Planned Parenthood. Why? So it will still be around to perform abortions for daughters if they want one.

He drew a contrast with his political opponent, Gov. Mitt Romney, saying, “Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices.”

To that end, President Obama asserted, “We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards.”

But is it really going forward to prolong taxpayer funding of an organization that exists almost exclusively to kill innocent children, an organization where over 90% of the pregnant women who walk in, come back out without their baby? Is it really going forward to prop up “Big Abortion” so it will be there should one of your own daughters decide to have her preborn child killed?

Such thoughts should be chilling to the rational mind.

Remember that Planned Parenthood received nearly $400 million in taxpayer funds during the first year of the Obama administration, and nearly $500 million the following year. That’s well over a million dollars a day. With that kind of funding, the abortion giant was able to perform almost 330,000 abortions in 2010 alone.

In other words, President Obama has already been hard at work to make sure Planned Parenthood is around if his daughters want it. But between now and the day they might call upon the abortion giant for services, hundreds of thousands of other daughters across the country are lying on a Planned Parenthood gurney “[controlling] their own healthcare choices” at the expense of their preborn child—a child they usually aren’t even given full information about by the Planned Parenthood employee who is preying on them.

I don’t know about President Obama, but I want better than that for my daughters. I wanted better than that for Tonya Reaves, the young mother who recently died on a Chicago Planned Parenthood gurney thanks to a botched abortion and clinic staff who tried to cover up their mistakes instead of helping her.

All women deserve better than that. No woman should be lying on that gurney in an essentially unregulated clinic, where Planned Parenthood lawsuits have scared the government into keeping their hands off even the most basic, common-sense sanitation and safety regulations.

The culture of death is taking a toll on all of us. From the preborn children Planned Parenthood kills and then pulverizes, or throws in the dumpster, to the women it maims in the process, and even to the leader of the free world who wants Planned Parenthood around so his daughters can avail themselves of its “services.”

It’s time to end funding for the abortion giant. That’s what would truly be a step forward—for life.

http://townhall.com/columnists/townhallcomstaff/2012/08/04/moving_forward_doesnt_mean_funding_planned_parenthood_for_president_obamas/page/full/