Journalists who exposed this horrific scheme just got the shock of their lives

54

The state of journalism in America is in serious trouble.

Liberals have turned the profession into little more than political activism for the Left.

And two real journalists who exposed this horrific scheme just got the shock of their lives.

Leftists have a disturbing affinity for abortion.

Many on the Left worship the so-called “right to choose” as if it were sacrosanct.

The truth is, abortion is a barbaric practice, but the Left doesn’t want people to know this.

That’s why they erect billboards that compare getting an abortion to spending a day at the spa.

And when two brave investigative journalists dared to expose the ghoulish underbelly of the Abortion Industry, they paid the price for it, a $2 million price.

Daily Wire reports:

The jury in the “Baby Body Parts” trial of activist and journalist David Daleiden has delivered a blow to undercover journalism, declaring that secret filming is now illegal and can leave journalists open to massive damages.

Planned Parenthood was awarded almost $2 million for the filming after alleging activist journalist David Daleiden secretly recorded executives negotiating to sell baby body parts.

Peter Breen, a lawyer for Mr. Daleiden, said the judgement is a direct threat to undercover journalism in California and across the country.

“Undercover Journalism now comes with a $2 million price tag,” he said.

[…]

His attorneys argue that the recordings took place in public places, such as restaurants and hotels, where participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Daleiden’s exposé featured Planned Parenthood employees nonchalantly discussing the sale of baby body parts.

This is the truth the Left wants hidden.

The more people know about abortion, the less they like it.

Pro-life advocate Abby Johnson was once Planned Parenthood’s employee of the year for her ability to “sell” abortions to women, but she left the clinic and never turned back when she finally saw how the ghastly procedure was performed.

This verdict wasn’t just a blow for investigative journalism, it was a warning.

If you go after the Abortion Industry, you will get visited with a ton of bricks.

But pro-life advocates must continue to speak up and let people know what’s really going on.

Do you think it’s fair game to record the practices of abortion mills like Planned Parenthood?

Leave a comment below.

54 COMMENTS

  1. Loading...
  2. Instead of demonizing Democrats, if pro-lifers really want to end abortion, it’s going to have to be bipartisan. I told Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life over a decade ago that we (Democrats) never see pro-lifers venture beyond their own base. Rather than reach across the aisle to Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc., and try to bring them on board with protecting unborn children, they just play to the same old Ronald Reagan / Oliver North crowd.

    If pro-lifers really want to end abortion, opposition to abortion must come from across the political spectrum. Pro-lifers are going to have to venture beyond their own base and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals etc. to distinguish abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana; to argue on secular grounds that the unborn are persons (secular arguments are religion-neutral, and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics) and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc. to see the killing of the unborn on par with domestic violence, hate crimes against LGBTs, etc.; and make the case to Americans that it’s possible to protect prenatal life without taking to draconian measures violating a new mother’s privacy and civil liberties in this regard.

    Robert Casey, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said he believed a pro-life liberal Democrat would easily be elected president: conservatives would vote for a pro-lifer, and liberals would vote for a Democrat articulating opposition to abortion as a secular and nonsectarian civil rights issue. In 1994, even archconservative Pat Buchanan had kind words for Robert Casey! If pro-life Democrats had greater visibility in past decades, perhaps Carol Crossed would have been the first female speaker of the House.

    After the 2016 election losses, Nancy Pelosi admits that the Democratic Party’s support of abortion has not been a winning issue. Pelosi spoke to the Washington Post about whether her party should support pro-life candidates or require that candidates support easy access to taxpayer-funded abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

    Struggling after heavy election losses in 2016, many in the Democratic Party are debating whether to support pro-life candidates, especially in rural areas where voters tend to be pro-life. Some, like Pelosi, appear to be recognizing that the party’s support of abortion-on-demand-up-to-birth is losing them voters.

    Unfortunately, rather than seeing the abortion issue as a real loser for Democrats, especially in red states (crucial with winning the Electoral College!), Pelosi blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss on pro-life voters themselves! Clinton supported the unpopular platform of forcing taxpayers to directly fund abortions, and she promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand up until birth, if elected.

    Pelosi told the Washington Post : “You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States—the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president. Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.”

    Pelosi, who supports abortion but describes herself as a Catholic, said many in her Catholic family are pro-life. She also mentioned U.S. Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, a Democrat with a mixed record on abortion.

    “You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?” Pelosi said.

    Jay Ware, a black Democrat in Illinois, said on the Democrats For Life email list as early as 2004 that it should be automatic: just as the Republican Party supports pro-choice candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger in blue states like New York and California where pro-lifers can’t win and even has Republican president George W. Bush campaign for them, Jay Ware said the Democratic Party should similarly support pro-life Democrats in red states where pro-choicers can’t win, and have Democratic presidents campaign for pro-life Democrats, etc.

    “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    –Hubert H. Humphrey

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion”destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014, “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  3. When science discovers the gene that causes sexual orientation and right-wingers begin aborting LGBT fetuses, what will the LGBT community do? Align themselves with the homophobic right merely paying lip service in their opposition to abortion? Side with pro-choice Democrats allowing prenatal hate crimes against LGBTs to take place under the guise of “choice”? Or join Democrats For Life?

    “I don’t believe in abortion on demand. The day we can solve the world’s population problem, the problem of browns in Central America, the problems of blacks in the ghetto, by aborting them, that’s unacceptable to me.

    “How about the kids in mental hospitals? They’re parasites on the environment. How about the old people in the institutions? They’re cluttering up the landscape. Do you want to exterminate them, too?”

    —Senator Ted Kennedy, 1970 Campaign for Senate

    (taken from Kristen Day’s 2006 book, Pro-Life Democrats.)

    Kennedy’s position wasn’t always in line with abortion advocacy groups, one of many formerly pro-life Democrats who changed with the political winds as the party moved from one influenced by pro-life southern Democrats and pro-life Catholics to one dominated by the abortion-rights feminist groups like NARAL and Emily’s List.

    Kennedy displayed an eloquent pro-life position in 1971, prior to Roe v. Wade, when he wrote a letter to Catholic League member Tom Dennelly.

    “While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.

    “Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old,” he wrote.

    “On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire,” he added.

    “When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception,” he concluded.

    Other prominent pro-life Democrats who eventually abandoned the courage of their convictions include former president Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, and “common ground” congressman Tim Ryan.

    In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive entitled, “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life,” Mary Meehan wrote:

    “If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the left.

    “We people who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the left speaking out on behalf of the unborn.

    “But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion.

    “We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care…

    “It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor.

    “The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas.

    “The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves—and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.”

    Meehan stated elsewhere:

    “Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a ‘Farewell to Liberalism’ several years ago.

    “Sykes cited several areas of disagreement and disillusionment, then added, ‘It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed.’ He said that liberals’ arguments in support of abortion ‘could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.’”

  4. In her 1982 article, “All Abortions are Selective”, pro-life feminist Jo McGowan asks about sex-selective abortions:

    “What are we to make of all this? Without denying in any sense the depravity of killing baby girls simply because they are girls, I submit that the position (pro-choice) feminists have taken on this issue is morally bankrupt, without substance of any kind.

    “Why? Because one cannot have it both ways. Once the abortion of any child, for any reason, is permitted, the abortion of all children becomes acceptable.

    “If it is all right to kill a child because it is handicapped, or because its mother is unmarried, or because it is the third child in a family that only wanted two, why isn’t it all right to kill it because it is a girl?

    “This process of aborting girls when boys are wanted has been termed ‘selective abortion’, but in fact every abortion is a selective one. What changes from case to case are only the values of the parents, determining what they select and what they reject…

    “(Pro-choice) feminists who have been so active in assuring women of the ‘right to choose’ can hardly complain when those same women exercise their freedom to choose something with which (pro-choice) feminists do not agree.

    “Choice being such a highly personal affair, one can hardly expect everyone to choose the same things. But it is tragically ironic that what has been hailed as the ‘great liberator’ of women may turn out instead to be the means of their destruction…

    “Perhaps, however, something good may yet emerge from this ‘female feticide’ outrage. Perhaps people, and (pro-choice) feminists in particular, will finally realize what is actually at stake in an abortion, any abortion.

    “Perhaps from this undeniable truth that it is wrong to kill girls will emerge the larger truth that it is wrong to kill anyone.”

    In the 1970s, pro-life feminist Juli Loesch wrote:

    “Each woman has the right (to contraception)… But once a woman has conceived, she can no longer choose whether or not to become a mother.

    Biologically, she is already a mother… the woman’s rights are then limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being who also has rights.”

    Pro-life feminist Ruth Enero similarly refers to a “narrowing of choices.”

    This point was made in a September 2000 article, “Abortion and the Left” which appeared in the Stanislaus Connections, a monthly newspaper put out by the Modesto, CA Peace/Life Center:

    Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices and requires a change in our lifestyle — the abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this.

    Are whites free to own slaves or lynch blacks?

    No! Because of the civil rights movement, we’ve corrected that injustice.

    Is domestic violence tolerated?

    No! Because of the women’s movement, domestic violence is unacceptable.

    Should hate crimes against LGBTs be permitted under the guise of “choice”?

    No! LGBTs have rights.

    This isn’t rocket science, but if animals have rights, then our freedoms and choices to commit crimes against animals are similarly limited.

    This point was made clear by pro-life feminist Ginny Desmond Billinger, in an article entitled “Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic,” which originally appeared in the September/October 1982 issue of Minnesota Feminists For Life, and which later appeared in the Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices anthology in 1985:

    “Let’s take a look at just a few of the other issues that I, as an avowed antichoicer, am ready to address:

    “Spouse and child beating — here, my position is unhesitatingly anti-choice. My perspective as a spouse, a parent, and a former child qualifies me to support all measures to remove from people the freedom to choose to abuse their family members–even in the privacy of their own homes.

    “Drunk driving — Again, anti-choice. I’m afraid I must impose my morality on those who would choose to operate life-threatening machines while influenced by alcohol, and ask them to temporarily abstain from one or the other.

    “Gun control — Despite the big-bucks, ‘constitutional rights’ lobbying by the NRA, I remain consistently anti-choice on this issue. The memory of a friend, forces me to reject any justification for handgun ownership without strict regulation.

    “Endangered species protection — Faced with a whale-hunter or seal-clubber, I’ll take a hard line anti-choice stand every time.

    “Hazardous waste disposal — We’re talking about the rights of corporate America vs. the average Joe here, but my anti-choice position still applies. The right to choose efficient business practices must always be weighed against the public’s right to a safe environment. Ditto for occupational safety and health issues.

    “I expect that these declarations will leave me open to censure; I will no doubt be labeled a heretic. The American principle of personal liberty would surely suffer with the propagation of my anti-choice philosophy…

    “So call me what you will: pro-life, anti-choice, fetus-worshiper, anti-abortion. A thousand labels will never alter the certainty that the road to freedom cannot be paved with the sacrificed rights of others.”

    Animal rights activists have even proven themselves to be “anti-choice” depending upon the issue. A 1994 letter to The Animals’ Voice Magazine, for example, states:

    “Exit polls in Aspen, Colorado, after the failed 1989 fur ban was voted on, found that most people were against fur but wanted people to have a choice to wear it. Instead of giving in, we should take the offensive and state in no uncertain terms that to abuse and kill animals is wrong, period! There is no choice because another being had to suffer to produce that item… an eventual ban on fur would be impossible if we tell people that they have some sort of ‘choice’ to kill… remember, no one has the ‘right to choose’ death over life for another being.”

    Similarly, a 2003 letter in Veg-News reads: “I did have some concerns about (the) Veg Psych column which asserted that we must respect a non-vegan’s ‘right to choose’ her/his food.

    “While I would never advocate intolerance (quite the opposite actually), arguing that we have a ‘right to choose’ when it comes to eating meat, eggs, and dairy is akin to saying we have a ‘right to choose’ to beat dogs, harass wildlife, and torture cats.

    “Each is a clear example of animal cruelty, whether we’re the perpetrators ourselves, or the ones who pay others to commit the violence on our behalf.

    “Clearly, we have the ability to choose to cause animal abuse, but that doesn’t translate into a right to make that choice.”

    “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment,” insists People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which was founded in 1980.

    As the animal rights movement continues to influence mainstream society, humankind is finally ending millennia of injustices against animals.

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014, “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  5. You’d think the unborn-right-to-lifers would immediately understand the animal-right-to-lifers! The case for animal rights should be readily understandable to the millions of Americans opposed to abortion on demand.

    “Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life Democrat Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a Life!’ Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence.”

    The animal rights movement, representing a cross-section of mainstream secular American society, is NOT “officially pro-choice,” but IS divided on abortion. In a 1992 interview on Dennis Prager’s conservative talk show, when specifically asked about the animal rights position on abortion, Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), admitted, “We’re divided.”

    Former television game show host Bob Barker is a conservative Republican and an animal activist. Tony LaRussa of the Animal Rescue Foundation is a political conservative. Vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez was pro-life. Vegan civil rights leader Dick Gregory was pro-life. Former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy, a devout pacifist, has expressed opposition to abortion, and in the 1980s was critical of Reverend Jesse Jackson for having changed sides on the issue.

    Dixie Mahy, past president of the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, has been vegetarian for sixty years, vegan for forty of those sixty years, and identifies herself as pro-life-and-pro-animal Matthew Scully, a conservative Catholic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush identifies himself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.” Catholic Concern for Animals is pro-life-and-pro-animal. Reverend Frank Hoffman’s http://www.all-creatures.org Christian vegan website is pro-life-and-pro-animal Compassion for animals is a fundamental tenet of the Baha’i faith, which endorses vegetarianism, says abortion is more a matter of individual conscience, but concludes, without taking a position on abortion, life should not be destroyed.

    John Stuart Mill wrote: “The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves — the animals.”

    Animals are like children. Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

    In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey writes: “In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us.”

    When told the animal rights movement is divided on abortion, Serrin Foster, Executive Director of Feminists For Life, said understandingly, “The Children’s Defense Fund is also divided on abortion.” Feminists For Life has many vegetarians and vegans. Serrin identifies herself as a vegetarian.

    From 1992 through 2003, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Buddhist, published Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights / libertarian ‘zine. The ancient eastern reincarnationist religions Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all predate Christianity, all oppose abortion, all teach ahimsa, or nonviolence towards humans and animals alike to the point of vegetarianism, all are vegan-friendly, and all teach that abortion and war are the karma for killing animals, and that therefore, we cannot end abortion nor bring about world peace until first we abolish the killing of animals.

    This knowledge, however, does not rest with everyone. Not all pro-life-and-pro-animal people advocate the reincarnationist strategy for ending abortion and bringing about world peace. Shay Van Vlieman, founder of Vegans For Life in the late ’90s, said she doesn’t expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime: she would just be glad to elect a president who will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insists she is not a Republican, but a libertarian!

    During the late 1990s, Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, feminist, vegan, past president of Feminists For Life, moderated an email list for pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans. Rachel is now a psychology professor, and has written several books on nonviolence. In 1998, the Animals Agenda ran a cover story on the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion. Vegan congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio), one of the most liberal members of Congress, was pro-life throughout most of his political career.

    Pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans are found within the “consistent-ethic” movement: pro-lifers opposed to capital punishment. A significant number of “consistent-ethic” Christians were / are vegetarian or vegan: Rose Evans, Ruth Enero, Rachel MacNair, Albert Fecko, Carol Crossed, Bill Samuel, Mary Krane Derr, Mary Rider, Father John Dear, etc.

    Mary Rider, a practicing Catholic, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical in 2002:

    “So we teach our children to walk softly on the earth and to embrace nonviolence as the only legitimate means of conflict resolution, on both a personal and a global level. We are aware of the excessive, privileged life we lead as educated, first world U.S. citizens and of the responsibilities to which our privilege calls us. We try to live simply. We eat low on the food chain. We try to buy nothing new… We try to respect all life and carry that message forward in all we do… Because we value people and relationships over things… First world consumption kills people around the world… Pollution, environmental devastation, corrupt governments, war, sweatshops… all are a are a result of our desire to buy more at a lower price… We believe each person has a right to live a valued and respected life free from hunger and discrimination…”

    The threat of overpopulation is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a human population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans. Even if abortion advocates argue shifting to a plant-based diet, a vegan diet, isn’t enough to stave off overpopulation, in light of the data showing the depletion of energy, food, fresh water, land space, raw materials and resources as well as the heavy contribution to air and water pollution, deforestization, and global warming caused by a meat-centered diet, how do abortion advocates — warning about overpopulation consuming the world’s resources — justify consuming animal products?

    If vegetarianism were merely about “fit” or following a peculiar set of “dietary laws” why are pro-lifers offended by pro-choice vegetarians and pro-choice vegans? Clearly, they’re offended because they know vegetarianism involves the animals’ right to life, and thus these pro-choicers appear to value animal life over human life under some circumstances. And issues like animal experimentation, circuses, and fur have nothing to do with diet, eating, nor food, but do involve the animals’ right to life. Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, Rosa Parks, etc. were all vegetarian, and none of them were Jewish nor Muslim.

    For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action offers an introduction to animal rights ethics within Christianity alongside directly related sanctity-of-life issues, like the possible rights of unborn children. The book’s foreword is written by Mary Eberstadt, senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, a Catholic who identifies herself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.”

    Author Charles Camosy responds to criticisms from academicians Peter Singer and Lynn White, Jr., that the misinterpretation of “human dominion” (versus compassionate stewardship) is responsible for the current ecological crisis. Camosy indicates that Christianity cannot be blamed if humans with their imperfections distort their own religious teachings, that Christianity did not give rise to the industrial revolution, and that real Christianity — as it was meant to be practiced — is at odds with market-driven ethics and mass consumerism (a point made decades ago by liberal Protestant theologian Dr. Harvey Cox). Camosy concludes: “I became convinced that, if I wanted to be authentically and consistently pro-life, I should give up eating meat.” Dozens of books have been written on Christianity and animal rights. Camosy merely provides an overview of animal ethics in Christianity.

    Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association, was raised Jewish, and is now serving in the United Church of Christ, America’s largest pro-choice Protestant denomination. Steve expressed interest in Democrats For Life, his only reservation was whether Democrats For Life favors criminalizing abortion. Some animal advocates and activists (like Catholic vegan columnist Colman McCarthy) oppose abortion, but don’t think criminalization is the answer.

    In 2004, on the Democrats For Life email list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided on abortion. This either indicates animal rights really are a bipartisan cause which conservatives can support alongside liberals, or it indicates many liberals are uncomfortable with abortion!

    In 2014, Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  6. I said it before and I will say it again; the reason white folk embrace abortion is because they’re racist and they know more black babies will be killed over white babies.
    Those white racists want to kill those black babies before they grow up to rob liquor stores and gas station in their hoodies with their handguns held sideways ahahahahahahahahaha

  7. Thank you Vasu for, once again, tying up an entire page with your Nazi propaganda!! I don’t care how much education you have, you still are ignorant and a very unwelcome pest…. ” Democrats for Death” for America and the innocent babies being murdered by abortions YOU support!!!!

  8. Culture Watch – you need to limit this Vasu Murti to 500 words or less. It’s very tiring to scroll down a book length comment of his.

  9. Like it or not, the truth IS coming out about the abominations committed at Panned Parenthood and other abortion mills!! How anyone can witness the horrors these poor innocent babies experience when an abortion is being done. Then stand by and casually discuss about selling these poor little soul’s body parts!!! What kind of creatures are these people???
    I truly believe there is a special place in Hell for these baby killers. And I hope when this bogus impeachment witch hunt is over for President Trump he will enact stronger laws against abortions. GOD will allow the truth to be told…..

  10. Yes, red idiot, that is what dems do. It is DEMS who do that. You know absolutely NOTHING at all about conservatives or Christians, who are pro-life. Jesus forbids murder.

  11. dems/leftists/libs, whatever they want to be called deny God and the truth. They embrace satan and his hate and lies. They think nothing of murdering a baby. They are very sick and vile creatures.

  12. vasu, you come on here and spout your sick hate and ignorance. It is very obvious that you know nothing at all about Jesus or Christians. Nothing you ever say is true. NO, animals ARE NOT like children!!!!!! Your ignorance is profound. All humans, including children and unborn babies have souls and will go to Heaven or Hell. Animals DO NOT have souls and when they die they are just dead. I love animals and would never mistreat one, but God put us ABOVE all animals. You can deny truth, but that just makes you the fool that you are

  13. This is pointless “conversation.” Without being able to vote on comments, just pointless. And after Vasu’s endless leftist diatribe, I’m out of here forever.

  14. Democrats are barbarians and baby haters so much so that they salivate over the slaughtering of them. The party of pure evil and hatred defines the democrat party to a tee. It is nearly impossible that a party like that even exists, much less than being in control of the house of representatives. Tells us just how sick America has become.

  15. Margaret Sanger was a white racist just like you BJ. She wanted black people sterilized so they couldn’t reproduce and outnumber white people ahahahahahahaha

  16. We are very tired of Vasu’s rants and never read them anymore because after you read one, you read them all. He should not be allowed on this and other Sites any longer.
    We despise what PP is doing, they are just plain baby killers and they have no hearts or souls! If they would really perform their jobs, they would provide birth control to every woman who needs it. Abortion is not birth control because it is plain murder!!

  17. Hurley Henson; Of course you are quite correct. He has violated their own rules by posting his cut and paste propaganda, over and over again. Why they allow him to get away with it is beyond me. Since they are allowing him to continue, I sometimes just feel the need to harass him right back, you know?
    Have a good day, sir…

  18. Human beings respect themselves and respect others. Life is a miracle of nature. We must control our desires to have sex like wild beasts. So many people don’t care to about the consequences of having sex with many partners. Pregnancies are the most wonderful experiences that a married couple can live through. We bring other human beings to the world to love and care for. Unfortunately killing alive human beings who are unable to defend themselves are torn into pieces to be sold like used auto parts. Only human beings commit such atrocities. MAGA 2020!

  19. To Vasu Murti, and other “pro-choice” individuals, and “the LGBTQ+ community :”
    Science does not need to “discover the gene which causes sexual orientation.” Science has ALREADY discovered that sexual CONSTRUCT is caused by the “Y” chromosome on genes. A gene which has the XX pair of chromosomes is female. A gene which has the XY pair of chromosomes is male. Nature, as created by God Almighty, renders that the sperm of the man bears the deciding chromosome, either XX, or XY, at the moment of conception of a new mammal ; whether it is a human or is some other mammal. Gender dysphoria (confusion) is caused LATER by environmentally misleading a human child. The lack of proper family role models during a child’s youth, or sexual abuse of some other nature, are factors which can detract from the child’s proper psychological development. An abdicating father who does not show his child the proper male role, whether he lives with the family or not, leaves a vacuum in the child’s instruction and observation of the proper male leadership role in the family. A dominating mother also is a factor which confuses the child about the proper role of a mother within a family. A child sexually abused through either physical molestation or through hearing, reading, or observing sexual perversion(s) is thus being MISLEAD in what the child learns about sexual/gender roles. No child “is born” having sexual dysphoria. They are taught, recruited unto that outcome. It is absolutely NOT NATURAL to be sexually CONFUSED !!!
    Killing a person is usually done because that person is INCONVENIENT to someone. The most basic right of anyone is the right to live. From the instant of human conception, that “blob of living tissue” is a person. Every gene, including every chromosome, is present at THAT time to develop through the many steps of life. Only interference will prevent that zygote/fetus/baby/ blob of tissue from doing so !!! The ovum/egg was a single cell, with only XX chromosome pairs. The sperm/seed was a single cell, with only XX (or only XY) chromosome pairs. The physical traits (color of skin, hair, and eyes ; type of build of bones and muscles ; probabilities of types of diseases ; etc.) are PREDETERMINED by the combination of the genes of the egg and the genes of the sperm. This includes being of one sex/gender, in physicality and psyche, determined by the one sperm cell !!! To have someone murder that growing child is not the right of the mother OR the father. As Juli Loesch stayed in the 1970’s, “Once a woman has conceived, she can no longer choose whether to become a mother…. Biologically, she is already a mother….the woman’s rights are then limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being who also has rights.” The FACT is, that neither you nor I have the right to murder each other because of one’s inconvenience to the other. A baby growing in the uterus of a woman is not the woman herself, as only a portion of it has been contributed by the woman. The child needs the protection and nourishing of the woman, granted. But if that child is not alive, that tissue ROTS, decays, and becomes gangrene, which, if not removed, begins killing the mother’s own, other tissues. This is PROOF that the growing child within the uterus is ALIVE !!! It does not wait until birth to become alive !!! It is no more legitimate for the mother to abort and kill the child than for someone to kill the mother. A spontaneous miscarriage is not the same as an elective abortion ; but rather is some failure of health which disables either the mother or the child from completion of the gestation of the child.

  20. Let’s turn on the lights and watch the ROACHES scurry! . . . Let’s expose them for the VERMIN and MISCREANTS that they are – and remove them. They are MURDERING the most helpless of American citizens, the UNBORN CHILD (which is an ABOMINATION as per God’s word, 6th Chapter of Proverb: the taking of INNOCENT life). Let’s STOP this scourge NOW. Team Trump and his allies 2020 – KAGA (Keep America Great Again).

  21. A lot of thes3 comments are BS. . . .ABORTION AT ANY TIME IS MURDER PLAIN AND SIMPLE. . .IT IS ALLOWING A LIVE PERSON WHO WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE TO TAKE OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOD !
    This is my personal opinion abortion should be cinsidered if the fetus shows bad uncorrectanle defects it wont be a normal child. . . .then it is our duty to prevent the suffering that child would have. . .but thaT DECISION BELONGS TO THE PARENTS !
    Otherwise any Doctor or medically trained person who can handle child birth, whio committs abortion of a healthy normal fetus is a murderer and should be dealt with the same way as a convicted felon !

  22. Uncle Hoppy, you are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not a racist. Never have been and never will be. I’m very thankful you don’t live where I do. You wouldn’t fit in. This is a conservative Christian community and blacks are no different than anyone else. Everyone gets along with everyone else. Guess you are the racist.

  23. bj, you’re wrong when you say animals don’t have souls! The Bible and the Christian tradition explicitly teach that animals DO have souls!

    One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity’s mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration. The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

    “Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account,” wrote Schopenhauer, “they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere ‘things,’ mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!”

    According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read “living creatures.” The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is “nephesh chayah,” or “living soul.” This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament.

    God breathed the “breath of life” into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Animals have the same “breath of life” as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22) Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as “the God of spirits of all flesh.” In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord “one soul of five hundred” of both humans and animals alike. Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

    “O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth.”

    Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, “Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created.” Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand “is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.”

    Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals: “They all draw the same breath…all came from the dust, and to dust all return.”

    The verse that immediately follows asks, “Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?” The exact Hebrew word for “spirit,” “ruach,” is used in connection with animals as well as humans. Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

    This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles. Paul spoke of God as the “giver of life and breath and all things to everyone.” (Acts 17:25) In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

    Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals: “The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died.” The exact Greek word for soul, “psyche,” was used in the original texts.

    Jesus repeatedly spoke of God’s tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires “mercy and not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as “so much garbage”), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus’ cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

    Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

    When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. “So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham… be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?” Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

    On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on “tsa’ar ba’alei chayim” or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. “Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 14:1-5)

    Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God’s kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses’ compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

    “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

    “And when he has found it,” Jesus continued, “he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’

    “I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance …there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

    “The compassionate, sensitive heart for animals is inseparable from the proclamation of the Christian gospel,” writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey in Love the Animals. “We have lived so long with the gospel stories of Jesus that we frequently fail to see how his life and ministry identified with animals at almost every point.

    “His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to St. Mark, in the wilderness ‘with the wild beasts’ (1:13). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a ‘humble’ ass (Matthew 21). According to Jesus, it is lawful to ‘do good’ on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (Matthew 12). Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not ‘forgotten before God.’ God’s providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27).

    “God so cares for His creation that even ‘foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’ (Luke 9:58) It is ‘the merciful’ who are ‘blessed’ in God’s sight and what we do to ‘the least’ of all we do to him. (Matthew 5:7, 25:45-46) Jesus literally overturns the already questionable practice of animal sacrifice. Those who sell pigeons have their tables overturned and are put out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-16). It is the scribe who sees the spiritual bankruptcy of animal sacrifice and the supremacy of sacrificial love that Jesus commends as being ‘not far from the Kingdom of God.’ (Mark 12:32-34)

    “It is a loving heart which is required by God, and not the needless bloodletting of God’s creatures,” concludes Reverend Linzey. “We can see the same prophetic and radical challenge to tradition in Jesus’ remarks about the ‘good shepherd’ who, unlike many in his day, ‘lays down his life for the sheep.’ (John 10:11)”

    English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley’s, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul’s. In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls. “Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death,” he wrote.

    The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals. A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast–Here and Hereafter. Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

    One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals. He concluded: “…The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul.”

    Influenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintained for centuries that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages. Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not *women* have souls! Women in the Western world (in the East, the situation is worse!) are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word–social, political and spiritual. Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

    Jewish writer Mark Matthew Braunstein writes in his 1981 book, Radical Vegetarianism:

    “Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, ‘…their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;’ and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a battalion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned. ‘

    In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by taking it to its logical conclusion:

    “But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be. If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

    “If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened… In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

    “Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?”

    “Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals,” writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals. “Just because they haven’t invented static cling, ICBM’s, or television evangelists doesn’t mean they aren’t spiritually evolved.”

    Kowalski’s definition of “spiritually evolved” includes “the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one’s self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess…

    “I am a parish minister by vocation,” Kowalski explains. “My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

    “I occasionally help people think through moral quandaries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion. Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence. In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit.”

    Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions. Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

    “Animals, like us, are microcosms,” says Kowalski. “They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

    “Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth? To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God’s beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

    “Animals,” Kowalski concludes, “are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being.”

  24. Does anyone read Vasu or Tom’s comments? It makes me tired just to page through them. Abortion is murder plain and simple. I don’t care how you dress it up and go into pages of nonsense, it is still murder. Those that do it will find out on judgment day. No one will change my mind.

  25. There is no gene that homosexual people have but that heterosexual people do not. There is no gene that heterosexual people have but that homosexual people do not. However, this does not necessarily mean that people choose their sexual orientations. Some chemical environmental factors occurring before birth or months afterward may play the significant part. Orientation is one of the many mysteries of the mind, like instinct and handedness, but notably handedness seems to have polygeneic factor in addition to the gestational ones. The “accuracy” of any pre-birth detection process for these kinds of properties would invariably be heavily dependent upon statistical data and, to an extent, pure chance. Let’s not forget that many “right wingers” object to amniocentesis, the only way thus far to perform any screening of any kind. Some folks even object to ultrasounds. Some prefer that some matters be left up to god.

  26. They indeed are and the best way to handle the gum flapper is to ignore him. Don’t bother reading a single word of his nonsense and don’t bother replying.

  27. Being a firm believer in Christ let’s examine what the Bible says about killing animals for our use. In the garden of Eden when Adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit and their eyes were opened, they discovered they were naked. Gen 3:7 “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (coverings).” Then God stepped in vs 21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD GOD make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Do you think God killed these animals before he used their skins for clothing for Adam and his wife? Then after the flood God talked to Noah Gen 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” God showed us it is OK to kill animals to eat and make clothing out of their skins. If you don’t believe in God or the Bible, I know you will discount this, but I do believe in God and the Bible. If God says it is OK, who are we mere mortals to say otherwise. Who decides morality, God or society? If it is society, then Hitler did nothing wrong when he killed the millions of Jews, JWs and other unwanted in his gas chambers, because his society said it was OK.

  28. You are right Margaret Sanger was a white racist, but that doesn’t translate into all white people being racists.

  29. Vasu, you are very good at cutting and pasting what others said or wrote. Did you ever have an original thought all your own?

  30. You are showing your ignorance in your opening remarks. People don’t have souls they are souls. Gen 2:7 “And the LORD GOD formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Notice it doesn’t say he became alive and God gave him a soul. It says he became a living soul. You also have a body that you live in and a spirit that maintains, heals and makes your body function. Your soul is that part of you that thinks and reasons using your physical brain that your spirit maintains. When you die, it’s your body that dies. Eccl 12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” You (your soul) is that part of you that will stand before the Great White Throne and be judged, granting you eternal life with a new body, or eternal death, ceasing to exist, by being cast into the lake of fire and burned up. Matt 10:28 “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If God can destroy a soul, there is no such thing as an immortal soul. It is impossible to destroy something that is immortal. You imply that the Bible explicitly says you have an immortal soul. It says no such thing.

  31. To all who are arguing about “pro choice”.

    Why don’t the pro choice advocates ever get around to arguing that the CHOICE to be impregnated or not is the very first choice to make?

    So, people should just boff freely without any concern about pregnancy then erase any “mistake” by slaughtering the result?

    Hey, wasn’t Planned Parenthood all about family PLANNING and CONTRACEPTION at one time? Now they’ve discovered the tons of ca$h available from running an abortion mill and suddenly CONTRACEPTION is a minor back-burner argument. Minor or not in existence at all.

    Where did the CHOICE to NOT get pregnant disappear to? Oh, I see, Liberals, boff like crazy, have fun, then murder the resulting human being. Okay, gotcha. Yup, tons of money to be made.

  32. deRanger – you are so right on! With all the contraceptive devices on the market, that first and only choice is to use these devices so that pregnancy doesn’t occur in the first place. People are using abortion as a means of contraception. And how these abortionists sleep at night is beyond me.

  33. Remember the first rule of Hippocrates? The Hippocratic Oath? “First, do no harm”.

    Whatever happened to that? Do doctors even take that Oath any more? I cannot think of anything more harmful than crushing the defenseless skull of the unborn child then tearing the body to pieces.

    But, I guess that’s just me. I’m not a doctor. They seem to have created the claim that life begins at birth. It doesn’t. The human life cycle begins at conception. From that point on only death ends it. Death, like crushing the skull and tearing it to pieces.

    I would have thought that’s pretty basic.

  34. Vasu, you love abortion so much, do us a favor, go witness an abortion first hand. Stand beside the butcher as he/she actually butchers the unborn baby & brings the baby parts out piece by piece. Then report back to us what you witnessed. Not one of your copied & paste long winded pieces of crap that you have used multiple times in the comment sections but write your own reactions to your actual thoughts on the abortion you witnessed. If you still support abortion after witnessing one up close & personal then I would say you are inhuman & you have no morals whatsoever.

  35. Scientists have already mapped the entire genome of human beings. There is NO gene for homosexuality. It is acquired, not inborn.

  36. Perhaps animal rights folks are seen as placing God’s creatures above God’s children he created in His own image, giving them a body to live in this material world? Most pro-lifers also want animal rights to a point, but they do not place animal rights above human rights.

  37. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to eliminate the “human weeds” in society. By that she clarified that those human weeds were the poor, and non-white, especially blacks. Planned Parenthood still adheres to their founders plan by placing their abortion clinics in black neighborhoods as much as possible. By far, black women get more abortions than white women. My question is: when will black people get wise to the left’s plan against them. Democrats have voted against every advancement blacks have made. Those advancements had to be forced into law by Republicans.

  38. Indeed there is no gene that predisposes a being toward any particular sexual orientation or gender identity. However, there remains the hypothesis that orientation is acquired during gestation or early childhood, due to hormone-related environmental factors. Sometimes sex distinction characteristic arc is strong enough that baby boys naturally form into girl-looking prepubescent boys, baby girls forming into boy-looking prepubescent girls. Inasmuch, some people find it extremely difficult to form sufficient social bonds as to partake in procreative activities closer to the way vertebrate species in general do.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here