In: Life News By: jonny
2 Jul 2010Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader), a strong proponent of health care reform, after winning the Democratic Primary with 84% of the vote, now faces the real challenge of 2010 Senate race. After 23 years in office, he faces the scorn of an embittered state—a victim in part of the anti-incumbent wave sweeping the nation. Also, he faces the opposition of Sharron Angle, the Republican Nominee.
Angle’s political views are consistently conservative, making no compromise; unfortunately, this may alienate those seeking to abandon Harry Reid. On life, her website makes the claim that “All human life is precious, regardless of location, age, infirmity, or degree of dependence.” (Sound a bit like SLED?) Also, in an interview with Bill Manders, she responded to a question concerning whether rape and incest would be valid reasons for abortion with this statement: “I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations.” While it seems to me that she is defending life on the basis of purpose, her comment has been skewed by some to make it seem that she believes the rapes were “God’s plan,” a classic ad hominem attack to divert attention from the real issue.
While her comments may garner scorn and ridicule from some and may endanger her election, we should be thankful for a politician who is not afraid to draw a hard line in defense of life—let’s pray she’s elected.
In: Life News By: jonny
24 Jun 2010At its elemental level, the abortion debate is not a battle between those who aim to restrict abortion and those who wish to extend its ubiquity, but a war between those who seek to defend life and those whose materialistic ideology is contrary to this goal. The strategy of this second camp is reliant on arbitrary standards to allow abortion.
Since Roe v. Wade, the standard of choice has been viability, which is a measure of the probability that a fetus will survive if external to the womb. This standard, however, has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus, and is akin to saying that one could be disposed of for the simple reason that one could not survive outside of the atmosphere—in short, an excellent example of an arbitrary standard. A recently passed law in Nebraska Read the rest of this entry »
In: Life Verses By: Josiah
21 Jun 2010Last week we looked at Proverbs 31:8-9 and the biblical mandate to defend those appointed to die. This week, however, instead of analyzing a verse commanding us to do something, we will look at a troubled man’s declaration of God’s work in designing us from conception. In defense of his moral uprightness, Job says the following to God:
If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant
When they complained against me,
What then shall I do when God rises up?
When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?
Did not He who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one fashion us in the womb?
Job 31:13-15
The context of this verse provides insight into what Job meant in this passage. Verses 13 and 14 give Job’s defense—he had listened to his servants when they complained to him. Why couldn’t God do the same for Job? What Job reveals in verse 15 is his acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty over us before we were even born; he makes the point that humans are created equal because the same creator has designed each individual in the womb. While not a direct command to defend the unborn like we saw in Proverbs, Job 31:13-15 is a reminder that all humans, both born and unborn, are fashioned in His image and therefore carry a certain intrinsic worth.
Furthermore, Job notes that human beings are God’s handiwork even before birth. In one of his yearly sermons on the subject of abortion, Reverend John Piper said, “This is God at work doing what he alone can do creating a person in his own image; and to attack this little person being completed by God is to attack God.1” When God designs a new being, we as humans have no right to interfere with His process.
Come back next Saturday for another verse and brief commentary.
1 “God at work in every womb” from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/45_God_at_Work_in_Every_Womb/
Note: Our apologies for not making this post Saturday as promised.
In: General By: jonny
16 Jun 2010Although my official, listed duty is news, I found this article by Peter Singer (published in the New York Times) irresistible. It’s title? “Should This Be the Last Generation?” Due to the nature of this blog, I pursued this article, finding it to be well-written and thought-provoking. Beyond this, however, the opinion piece was brilliantly succeeded by an equally thought-provoking list of questions for the readers to respond to in the comments section (I’ve included it at the end of this post).
The first two questions, as far as I understand them, deal with the general question “does the probable quality of life (economically, emotionally, and physically) of a child have any bearing on whether that child should be brought into existence?” This question is really quite interesting, especially in that it does not bring into question the personhood of the fetus but rather extends to wherever it is that the child is brought into existence. In fact, Peter Singer does not mention abortion at all in his article, and instead uses sterilization as his method for preventing reproduction. Read the rest of this entry »
In: Life Verses By: Joshua
12 Jun 2010Welcome to the first post in a new weekly series, Life Verses. The purpose of this series is simple: to ensure that our statements as pro-life people stand on firm, biblical ground. Our emotions may make us empathetic towards the unborn, but our efforts are futile unless God is the final authority and director of the pro-life cause. Especially when conversing with Christians, we must know the Scriptures and what they have to say concerning abortion.
So then, what does the Bible have to say about defending the unborn? Interestingly, the Bible never explicitly talks about abortion. Perhaps there was no term for it, or it simply did not occur to any notable degree. (Civilizations in those times that did not want a newborn child would simply leave it out to die) Regardless though, the Bible in no uncertain terms commands us to defend the defenseless. One instance of this is found in the following passage from Proverbs: Read the rest of this entry »
In: General By: Anne
1 Jun 2010I think it is pretty safe to say – unfortunately – that, in this day and age most people have a certain idea about these strange creatures called “teenagers.” There are three things that can define male and female teens:
Males:
Females:
This is a sad truth, and one that teens themselves seem to accept easily. They are fine with doing the bare minimum and thinking that they will have time to change the world when they are not in school. But the reality is that right now is the one of the most opportune times they have to make a difference. So why do they waste it? They have succumbed to the low expectations of our culture. And the even sadder thing is that, when asked, they probably would not say that it was wasted. But I would pose a question to these guys and gals: how is playing a video game you have beaten a hundred times changing the world? Is spending an entire day trying on clothes you probably will never buy changing the world?
Now we come to the good part: there is hope! But it requires teens to do a very challenging thing: change. This is a word that has been thrown out there recently, and, while some might consider it a bad thing, I think that, put into the right context, it is a very good thing. The change that teens need to make is to break out of the low expectations that our society gives them and take action to change the world one little bit at a time.
In: General By: jonny
21 May 2010I was considering titling this “the dangers of duplicity,” but I felt that this would not be entirely accurate (you’ll see why later). The reason I originally thought of that title was because of my original inspiration, which was partly some events that triggered me to write this article, and partly a continuing stream of thought about duplicitous (or multi-plicitous–more on that later, once again) living, where one acts as and considers oneself as different people in different settings.
I chose this title instead (after long deliberation) with emphasis on the word “movement:” it’s been discussed in the past how ideology that rejects personhood (and thus places no intrinsic value on humanity ) ”justifies” abortion on an intellectual level; however, it also forms the basis for the popular (cultural) pro-abortion movement and the arguments that are most frequently given by the members of this movement.
As the nation prepares for the 2010 Senate Race, its media companies and organizations follow along with intense coverage. Not to be entirely outdone, I’ve decided to investigate some of the critical races.
The New York Times provides this incredible, interactive graphic, in which it details 6 states as toss-up states, and 3 others as leaning democratic. Even if the Republican party were to seize all of the Republican leaning seats (8), and the 6 toss-up seats, it would still need to gain two of the Democratic leaning seats in order to gain a majority in the Senate. However bleak this may seem, encouragement may be found in examinations of the Pennsylvanian and Californian races.
In: Pro-Life Answers By: Joshua
20 May 2010Before we begin the summaries for arguments 13-16, I think it’s important that we again focus our thoughts on what the goal should be when talking with someone who is pro-choice. We’ve mentioned in our previous summaries that the ultimate goal of a general debate with a pro-choice person is to bring the argument back to two key questions on which the whole abortion debate heavily depends: What is abortion? and What are the unborn? These two questions summarize the primary differences between the pro-life and the pro-choice perspectives, as each side’s responses to those questions portrays their mindset concerning the subject of abortion.
However, while we do want to bring the topic back to those two questions, it is just as critical that we actually address the argument itself. Thus, with this summary I hope to show you an effective way to intelligently respond to each argument, while also giving you a few clues on how to swing the topic back to the two core questions.
Pro-choice argument 13: “It’s unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy or the pain of giving up a child for adoption.”
It appears that Elena Kagan will be the first nominee of President Obama for the opening Supreme Court seat, and therefore we must seek to understand better exactly what she will bring to the Supreme Court if approved.
The news is currently flooded with articles about her right know, but I chose to investigate this one specifically, drawn in by the reference to Thurgood Marshall. For those of you who don’t know, or have forgotten, Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer critical in the victory in Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court. With this knowledge in mind, I was somewhat shocked by the title of the article (“Michael Steele attacks Kagan’s praise of Thurgood Marshall”). Upon reading the article, however, I discovered that it had nothing to do with race-relations, and everything to do with the Constitution.
Voices for the Voiceless is a pro-life group for teens by teens located in the east valley area of Arizona. We are a generation called to take a stand for life, to the glory of God. Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” [more]