It is ok to kill a baby in the womb when…?

That’s was the question asked to everyone in this video I watched called, “180.” If you haven’t seen this movie, stop what you are doing and take 1/2 an hour out of your day to watch this. The interviewer skillfully questions people’s world-views in a way that makes them reconsider their thoughts on abortion and the  holocaust.

Some individuals answered that question with the following statement(s).

1. “If it comes from something that should not have happened.”
2. “If you can’t support it when it comes out.”
3. “If she feels she can’t take care of it.”
4. “Medical problems, all sorts of birth defects or whatever… so you know that their quality of life is going to be restrained to a 9×9 hospital room.”
5. “No possible way that child would have a good quality of life.”

Our boys were born out of wedlock, to a teenage mother who was unable to care for them.  They were born at 25 weeks gestation and therefore have faced many challenges.  Please know that everyone of these answers describes one or all of our boys. Look at these answers, then look at our boys and tell me that if you still think these statements are valid.

The last year has been rough. It’s been a roller coaster of emotions, hospital trips and joy. Through it all we’ve seen that God is faithful and he has a plan for our boys. Thank you for your prayers and partnership in the gospel. I look forward to sharing more of our journey in the up and coming days, weeks and years.

Here’s a snapshot of our last year:

bryanlopez.com sponsor -

A very compelling article from @abort73. Here are a few thoughts that are noteworthy:

Because people had spent the last 20 years “organizing” their sex lives on the assumption that abortion would always be legal and available, the social cost of abolishing abortion would be too high–or so the thinking went. The fact that this argument was made at all (and continues to be made today) is a strong indication that the ethical merits of abortion are dubious at best. The precedent of positive law and the social cost of abolition are not the pillars to build an ethical case upon. We’ve seen them crumble before. They did not justify the continued, legal protection of slavery or segregation, and they do not justify the continued, legal protection of abortion.

When the injustice of slavery was recognized, the “impossibility” of removing it from a culture dependent on its existence became morally irrelevant. The difficulty of accommodating millions of displaced slaves has no bearing on the justice of slavery, and the difficulty of caring for millions of children who would have otherwise been aborted has no bearing on the justice of abortion. Appealing to the social cost of abolishing abortion does not justify the act of abortion itself. It is only when that is recognized that we can fairly and reasonably consider the practical difficulties that must be overcome in a post-abortion world.

At the outset, we should remember that for the first 200 years of U.S. history, abortion was illegal. We’ve lived without abortion before. We can live without it again. Abortion is just one of three potential responses to unplanned pregnancy. The other two, adoption and parenthood, will remain perfectly viable solutions in the post-Roe era. The problem, of course, is that both adoption and parenthood require the mother to carry her child to term. There’s simply no getting around the fact that abortion is a far more convenient option for women who don’t want a child and don’t want to be pregnant. Carrying a child for nine months (and then giving birth) is no small thing. According to most modern feminists (and to the Supreme Court ruling quoted above), women cannot have social and economic equality unless they can “control their reproductive lives.” In other words, without the right to forcibly end a pregnancy, women cannot compete with men in the workplace or in society at large.

This seems a fairly low view of feminism, one for which the highest ambition is to essentially become a man. More to the point, such thinking misses the fact that there are non-abortive ways to ensure against pregnancy. Abstinence is one. Tubal ligation is another. The government does not force women to get pregnant and have children, but it does prohibit them from killing those children once they’re born. Why should it be any different before the children are born? The real question is not whether abortion is convenient for women (and men). Clearly it is. The real question is whether or not abortion kills an innocent human being. If it does, then the convenience question is immaterial. Once it is recognized that abortion, at every stage of pregnancy, kills a genetically-distinct, rapidly developing human being, it can no longer be regarded as an ethically viable choice. Adoption must take its place, especially for women not materially or emotionally capable of parenting a child.

Read the entire article here >>

1. Morally speaking, is having an abortion really just like picking a scab?

2. If abortion is not murder because the fetus is not a person then why make it “safe, legal, and rare”?

3. Do you have a similar desire to make scab-picking “safe, legal, and rare”?

4. If a woman were raped and got pregnant, which one would you kill a) The baby, b) the rapist, or c) both?

5. Are you comfortable with the fact that “a” is the only answer you may choose according to (the present interpretation of) the Constitution?

6. Abortion advocates frequently focus on the size of the fetus. Why is that relevant?

7. Do tall people have more rights than short people?

8. Do men have superior rights relative to women given that men are, on average, larger than women?

9. Is fetal lack of self-awareness a justification for abortion?

10. Is murder permissible when the victim is sleeping and hence unaware of the surrounding environment?

11. Does the fact that there are many miscarriages really lend credence to the argument that abortion is justified?

12. Does the high infant mortality rate in Third World nations justify infanticide in Third World nations?

13. Does the spontaneous termination of life by nature justify the intentional termination of life by man?

14. Are human beings inherently more valuable than other animals such as dogs?

15. What gives human beings more value than dogs?

16. Should a woman abort a baby because it may be expensive and time-consuming to raise a child to adulthood?

17. Should a woman be able to kill a puppy because it may be expensive and time consuming to feed and care for a dog?

18. A person can be held criminally responsible for killing a dog. Should a dog be held criminally responsible for killing a cat?

HT: Z

HT: JT

My wife and I watched this movie last weekend, and it brought us to tears. Read how babies are being saved because of this wonderful movie. If you haven’t seen it you should check it out!

WASHINGTON (BP)–A special life-saving project using the movie “Bella” has reportedly resulted in 200 babies being saved from abortion as of late October.

The report of the 200th child being spared through the Bella HERO project came Oct. 26, the third anniversary of the movie’s theatrical release. The movie portrays the difference a man with a painful past makes in the life of an abortion-minded co-worker.

The Bella HERO effort provides free DVD copies of the move to pro-life pregnancy care centers to give to women considering abortion. More than 10,000 DVDs of “Bella” have been distributed to nearly 400 pregnancy care centers so far.

“Seeing the reaction that our film got everywhere it was screened, I realized that if we could put this film into the right people’s hands it could literally change and save lives,” said Jason Jones, one of the film’s co-executive producers. He founded the Bella HERO initiative as part of his nonprofit Human Rights Education and Relief Organization (HERO).

Read the rest >>

HT: Greg Schneeberger

As we observed at the outset, induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to an abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more cursing commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness out of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism!

——————————

Meredith G. Kline, “Lex and Talionis and the Human Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 193-201.

Denny Burk writes:

Twenty weeks into their pregnancy, T. K. and Deidrea Laux found out that their son had Trisomy 13—a rare DNA abnormality. After being counseled that “terminating the pregnancy” would be an option, they chose life. In Deidrea’s own words:

“We didn’t not terminate because we were hanging on to some sort of hope that there was a medical mistake or there was gonna be some sort of medical miracle. We didn’t terminate because he’s our son.”

The Dallas Morning News has produced this video chronicling the birth and home-going of Thomas. The Laux’s are members of Paul Lindquist’s church (one of my former Criswell College students), and Paul is the one who alerted me to “Choosing Thomas.” This is an amazing story of love and life, and you need to watch it.

Praise God for this sweet family. What a testimony to the precious value of life.