Your heart will break when you hear about a new abortion law that passed

87

Democrats are becoming more extreme than ever when it comes to abortion.

They are even open to the idea of legal abortion up to, and after, the point of birth.

And your heart will break when you hear about a new abortion law that passed.

In every abortion, there are two victims.

There is the baby who will never see the light of day, and the mother who was tricked into believing what they are doing is right.

Left-wing activists have spread their propaganda so far, many women truly believe they are not destroying a life.

But more and more doctors are realizing this is not true and refusing to perform abortions.

To get around that, Maine’s Governor just signed a bill that permits non-doctors to perform abortions in the state.

The Daily Caller reports:

Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill Monday permitting non-doctors to perform abortions in Maine.

The law will allow physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, according to a press release from Mills’ office.

“Allowing qualified and licensed medical professionals to perform abortions will ensure that Maine women, especially those in rural areas, are able to access critical reproductive health care services when and where they need them from qualified providers they know and trust,” Mills, a Democrat, said in a statement.

“These health care professionals are trained in family planning, counseling, and abortion procedures, the overwhelming majority of which are completed without complications,” Mills added.

The Hippocratic Oath that every doctor agrees to orders them to do no harm to a patient.

That includes an unborn child killed during abortion.

So to get around that, states are beginning to allow those who never have to take that oath to perform the procedure.

Not only that, but because these people are not as skilled as doctors, it makes the likelihood of a child being born alive after an abortion more likely.

And the Democrats have their backs on that as well, pushing laws that allow the child to be killed after surviving an abortion procedure.

Do you think nurses should be able to commit abortions?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

87 COMMENTS

  1. Awesome, Maine will get rid of 2 Liberals at one time! A possible future libtard and the present one when she dies from complication from a goof up by an non-medical idiot performing the abortion. Still a shame for the innocent baby caught in the mother’s having an inconvenience because of not taking proper precautions during her fling!

  2. Abortion is cold blooded murder, life begins at inception. they are alive, breathing, moving, feel pain. Dear God please turn them around & STOP this horrific murdering!!!

    • I totally agree. Abortion is cold blooded murder and life does begin at conception. Science proves it. A fetus is a baby, a living breathing human with a beating heart. Living inside the womb of a human being, whether its the mother or the host, that baby is alive and is its own person and has its own DNA. Anyone who aborts that child is a murderer. There are baby drop off points at all fire stations, police stations, hospitals, clinics, churches and adoption agencies. Take that innocent baby to one of these places and free it to live its own life. You dont have to have responsibility for it, just dont kill it like a bug on the ground. Then go to walgreens or wherever you buy your pharmaceuticals and get yourself your birth control pills and you might as well buy condons for the guy because this way you are fully protected to avoid another pregnancy. Make sure you do this monthly for the rest of your life so you dont have to take responsibility for another human life.

      • Only one problem, with your point of view. In order for this to become the “Law of the Land”, women, just like you, will be returned to the days of colonial servitude. This will mean that you will have NO rights, to vote, speak your mind, or even speak, in public.

        While the Constitution guarantee’s you Freedom of Speech, and Expression, what you call “bringing an end to cold-blooded MURDER”, is nothing more than REMOVING womens rights, across the board.

        Guess what will happen, after women ,like you, LOSE the right to speak your minds?

        Mens rights will be repealled, as well.

        Still, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, give us the right to dis-agree. Or, do you support the repeal, of those documents?

        I just wonder if you realize what you, and other women, will LOSE, if your views become the Law of the Land?

        You cant have it both ways. Either grown women have adults rights, including making their own, life, decisions, OR women are returned to colonial servitude.

        The choice is YOURS! Choose WISELY!

        • Norman what about those babies in the wombs right to life! Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you! I don’t know know if you believe in God but if you do shame on you . Basic Ten Commandments “thou shall not kill”.

          • I agree with you, Suzanne, Abortion is just another name for abortion. I have asked this question many time but always get stupid replies to it. I even had a woman named, I believe, Nancy Alexander that has said that it wasn’t murder and it wasn’t a sin. If the name is correct, she had it soooo wrong then, and I’ll bet she still has it wrong. As for you though, you have it 100% right.

        • Norman HInderliter, These people have it right; it is plain out and out MURDER! We aren’t talking about giving up women’s rights we are talking about the baby’s right and fixing it to where there can be no murder of the unborn child. You hear the women always hollering, “My body, my right!” But as Suzanne asked, What about the baby’s right? Doesn’t the baby get the right to live? What about if a law was made to where men had to have vasectomies? How would you feel then? Wouldn’t it be your right to protest and try to change that? Have you ever seen an abortion done? Once you did, I believe that you would change your mind about it. The vacuum device that they use to rip the baby apart is covered over so that you can’t see what happens to the unborn baby. The ultrasound machine screen is turned to where you can’t see what’s going on. The device sucks and tears the baby apart piece by piece, until all of the baby is sucked out and then when only the head is left in the womb, they used forceps to crush the head and suction it out. Yeah, I know about it. I haven’t had it done but I went onto the site: http://www.abortion.com and saw it; and also a friend of mine went to Planned Parenthood to get the abortion done and was given a pamphlet about it which after she looked at it, thank God, she decided to keep the baby. This is why so many are against abortions and letting the baby get a chance to live.

          • Karen K. Thank you for your postings. I tried to respond as well to some of these pro-choice supporters. But Culturewatch is not letting them go through. Very frustrating.But you have summed up my feelings, so thank you!!

        • A baby IS NOT part of a woman’s body. It is its own person with its own DNA. Murdering the most helpless and innocent human beings is extremely sick. But libs have no morals and murder is fine with them. very sad

      • I agree, Vicki, why else would it be called a double homicide if a pregnant woman is killed? Like I said in another reply, Abortion is just another name for murder.

  3. Statistics on abortions done nationwide have shown that there is a great increase in abortion-related medical problems to women who have abortions done by non-physician staff, i.e., Physicians’ Assistants and Nurses. As someone who worked in health care, I know that these people have not undergone proper medical training to perform abortions, and many uninformed women who undergo abortions done by these medical staff have a higher risk of having incomplete abortions where the fetus is still alive, or have an even more serious risk of hemorrhaging which has led to death among women who did not seek medical help immediately. No matter how early or late in a woman’s pregnancy an abortion is done, the risk of injury to the mother is ALWAYS there. Having an abortion can also lead to infertility in a woman who may later decide to have a baby – a 25% increase in infertility. To any woman who is contemplating having an abortion, I would say: THINK TWICE! This procedure can lead to permanent medical damage to your body.

  4. Makes no difference what they call it – it’s outright murder to take the life of a baby especially after it’s born. These horrible abortion laws are not only wrong but they will affect how murder charges are made in the death of a pregnant woman. Currently, two separate murder charges are often brought against the killer in the death of the woman and her unborn child – they won’t be able to do that with these ungodly laws. So many “wrongs” to all of this.

    • How in the world can these disgusting forms of human excrement call an abortion “critical reproductive health care services?”. Since when is cold blooded murder providing a health care service? Liberals are the most evil pieces of human garbage imaginable.

  5. This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard!! “Health care professionals will perform these procedures”. Isn’t that a contradiction in terms,” health care”???And to add to this horror, they are considering allowing an abortion up to and including the time of birth??? Isn’t that murder???
    Thank God doctors who took the Hippocratic Oath are refusing to preform these abominations!!!I have always tried not to pass judgement on another, but this Governor should rot in Hell for this!!!! Too bad her mother didn’t do this to her before she became Governor.

  6. The first abortion these non-licensed ‘professionals’ should perform should be one on Janet Mills. It should be simple. You punch a hole in the back of her skull, but you can skip the part where you suck the brain out. She obviously doesn’t have one. Nor a heart either.

  7. A woman should have complete control over her own body. The men in politics should never have a say as to a woman’s body. I do believe a license Doctor should perform the abortion procedure. But I strongly believe it’s out body. If men want a say let them get pregnant and not have any control.

    • Perhaps, but after the act of vaginal sex (resulting in orgasm and the release/mixture of reproductive fluids), there exists another life, waiting to be introduced into the world. After sperm meets egg, LIFE EXISTS, and any ending of that life is murder

    • Kim: The woman walks out of the building with her own body, what the hell kind of no control do you call that. She has total control over her body from having sex to have or kill the baby. Have the baby and give it up for adoption. Right now those looking to adopt have to go over seas or to S. America to get babies as 65 million babies have been killed here by so called mothers or murderers. The baby is the one who has no control over her body because if it’s a boy it has a chance, it’s girls being murdered. To get a baby a man who worked with me had to go to S. America because what you have now to adopt are older kids from drug mothers who don’t even know who the father is. He and his wife adopted an older one and still wanted a baby. Everybody needs to say murder and not abortion which is nothing but a coverup name for what the Supreme Court said to do in private since all murderers want to murder in privacy.

      • When Roe v Wade was passed what was the political makeup of the SCOTUS??? I really don’t know but I would bet it was liberal. And I hope the members of that court are burning.

      • So women should be forced to give birth so that someone wanting to adopt has a better chance at finding a baby – without the expense of traveling to some foreign country? So now women are to become brood mares? I always thought that was a big part of the anti-choice/forced birther contingent and now you’ve just put it into words. What’s next – if there’s insufficient inventory of nice, white, American babies to select from maybe we should we just corral women, inseminate them and wait for the next crop of adoptable babies to come along? How disgusting.

        • You are stupid!! Nobody it forcing women to become brood mares as you call it. It is a woman’s right NOT to have sex if she doesn’t want it. But a lot of women use it as a form of birth control which is wrong!! I don’t know where you get your information but you are sooooo far out there you don’t really get it. You are just rambling on a bunch of nonsense!! Abortion is MURDER!! Plain and simple. If you can’t see it that way then you are the one that’s disgusting!!

          • Karen K: L Hildebrand is another one I TRIED to respond to. But AGAIN Culturewatch wouldn’t post it.But again you posted my feelings exactly. So again, THANK YOU!!!

          • Now who’s rambling? Using abortion as a form of birth control? That is such an absurd idea – between the cost, physical aftermath and now all too frequent hoops to jump through no woman looks at abortion as just another form of birth control!

            Most people, even in the hyper-religious USA, do NOT believe that abortion is murder. Current stats are something like 25% of American women will have an abortion at some point during their lives. I seriously doubt that all those women think of themselves, or their friends, sisters, daughters, mothers as murderers. Until it is able to draw breath on its own then it is within the legal rights of the mother to decide whether to carry the embryo/fetus to term.

        • LH…Abortion is MURDER. That is a FACT. It makes no difference what you BELIEVE or THINK. Life begins at conception. That is a scientific FACT. Read a biology book. It is a BABY from the moment it is conceived. It is the SAME baby in or out of the womb. And NO ONE has the right to murder an innocent helpless baby at any stage of its development. You are truly clueless.

    • Kim,when you loan your body out as an “oven” for the making of a human life your body is no longer your own.You made the decision to have sex knowing that pregnancy was a possible hazard of the sex act.You should have thought of that and taken appropriate steps prior to sex to prevent the pregnancy from occuring.You are using abortion as a tool to rid yourself of something unwanted instead of taking the responsibility of doing other things that will prevent pregnancy.Parrot all of the excuses you have heard,you are still in the wrong.Your judgement day will come.

      • You are dead wrong. It is not your body you are killing. Its your son or daughters body. They have a different dna than you which makes them a differen5 person. The baby is the one that feels the pain when they are being ripped apart not you. When a baby is born a few months early how do you explain how they survive. Its because they are a different person with everything they need to survive. They are fighting for their lives. They dont deserve to be assassinsated because you were stupid and irresponsible.

    • Your rights only go so far as to not step on another’s rights. Mom has rights, until she tries to use them against her baby’s rights. Then those mommy rights end! And baby’s rights begin! All people have rights, including those little ones in the womb! They are not just globs of cells, unless you are too! Put God first, and life will be wonderful for all. The left wants to destroy the American family. What better way than to turn a mother against her baby? Rose, you used my favorite line. I tell it to all kids and adults. “Actions have consequences”. Especially with God. He doesn’t hand out a slap on the wrist. When the end comes, we will have chosen HEAVEN or HELL by our actions. Please think before you act!

    • Kim, a baby is NOT part of a woman’s body. It is it’s own body with its own DNA. It is a baby from the moment it is conceived. So you support the cold-blooded murder of a helpless innocent human being. How very sick and sad

    • Kim, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Abortion is MURDER! I don’t care what is said about it. It’s not only men, but it is women that feel the same way about abortion. They way you are talking, you would rather kill premies in the NICU that to see them grow and get stronger. Abortion is the same way. People want to kill them before they can grow and get stronger. The womb is the incubator for the baby. It’s people like you that should get down on their knees and ask God for forgiveness. God created the baby and people should let it live.

  8. God is not getting through so maybe another avenue needs to be taken. Action have consequences maybe now they will really have to live with their choices. Don’t forget it is their (woman’s) choice. Their (woman’s) choice to ignore all the information out there how you get pregnant and the science behind the once pushed rhetoric that it is just a blob. Their (woman’s) choice to take some sort of measures or prevention for pregnancies. Their choice (woman’s) to have sexual intercourse with the louse, and still their (mother”s) choice to take that babies life. Remember the baby didn’t ask to be conceived just as much as those (women) screaming more or less how dare that baby develop in their (mother’s) body. Pretty ignorant! You played not the baby, you were the one that is at fault not the baby. Again actions have consequences. Have more respect for yourself (women) and don’t hop in that bed.

    • Very well said Rose. God said in His Word-for married couples, in 1st Corinthians 7:4 the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
      So if a wife wants to have an abortion is she allowed? Plan parent hood was only suppose to help women that couldn’t afford medical care like pap smears, help the new mothers take care of their new born baby’s, not abortions. Lord is going to ask you women why and what are you going to answer?

    • Kim, for your information. you use your vagina to think. now if for forty three years you haven’t learned about Contraception is time you learn to keep your legs closed. Abortion was legalized by the so called supreme court, nine men and women all dressed in black. They will face a real SUPREME court some day and you will too.

    • I was happily married to a non-louse, with an IUD firmly in place (supposedly the most fool-proof method of contraception at the time – late ’70’s) and a 6 month old baby when I got pregnant again. Unwanted pregnancies don’t just happen to foolish loose women you sanctimonious hag . I was extremely thankful that abortion was legal and available at the time – and I still am. And I hope it remains the law of the land now and forever.

      If god is so interested in all babies being born why does he cause so many miscarriages?

      • So murdering a baby is okay with you. You are extremely sick. And God does not cause miscarriages. If you bother to read the Bible you would know that. And you would also know that God does not condone murdering a baby in or out of the womb.

        • Your god sure killed a lot of living, breathing babies for a being that is supposedly so concerned about unborn fetuses. And if he doesn’t actually cause miscarriages he apparently doesn’t do much about preventing them either. If he REALLY gave a crap about the lives of children you would think he’d do little something for the ones being abused or starving to death due to famines and civil war.
          All the above pretty much proves that “god” doesn’t exist and even worse if he does and allows all that pain and suffering on the part of blameless infants. It’s said we can’t/aren’t even supposed to guess at god’s motives but then he shouldn’t be surprised that there are those of us who prefer not to worship his murderous ass.

      • Thank you for the new title. Sound like we are close in age and back in the 70’s because of breast issued I chose not to take the pill and there was no way I’d have an IUD stuck in me. The other option was the rhythm method and hubby used condoms. It must have been luck but I will tell you this much I would have been pissed, angry, every thing you can think of but then I would have realize it happened through love and there is no way I would have kill the baby. I would have cut all unnecessary expense, muddled through and we would have welcome that baby into our life with open arms. That reminds me when I was seventeen my mother was pregnant and typical teenager I was not happy and embarrassed Mom and Dad had sex oh wow. I remember the morning Mom and Dad weren’t home. I woke my brothers and told them they must be at the hospital. My older brother had just returned from Vietnam and his comment was what am I going to do today. I told him I guess you will have to milk the cow first. I left on the bus for school. When my bus got to the school I seen our car in the parking lot so as soon as I got off the bus I went to our car to see why Dad was there and I wanted to know what Mom had only to see tears drop from his eye and a sniff he wanted to know where my younger brother was and told him he caught a ride with our cousin. He wanted to wait for him but the sorrow was to great and he blurted out that Mom lost the baby. I told him I’d tell my brother and he left. I caught up with my brother and told him. Another typical 15 year old teenager he blew it off.
        When I got home that afternoon from school I’d learn my Dad, older Brother and an Aunt buried the baby. Then my Dad had to call my sister who was now out of school and working in a big city. I listen while my Dad choke out the news to my sister then he handed me the phone and said talk to her. Not knowing what had actually happened to the baby all I could talk about was school. We went in to see Mom and through her tear she told us that the cord was wrapped around the babies neck and die a few days before delivery. That baby was unplanned but was loved which I believe most us baby boomer were.

      • L.Hidebrand:So your defense to having an abortion is you already had a 6 month baby so…….what was the problem? Not mature enough to handle another life??So you just proved our point exactly.Abortion is THE choice of birth control today…Not for any other reason….

      • L. Hildebrand, God doesn’t cause miscarriages. When you first get pregnant, it is something new to your body system, and sometimes the body reacts to the first pregnancy like it is a foreign object and sends out a flood of white blood cells to fight it off. That is the medical reason. Now the Godly reason could be that God sends the baby to you but feels like the timing isn’t right for the pregnancy. It happened to me. I was only 19 with my first pregnancy and my husband and I really didn’t have the money for a baby. I miscarried. It hurt me and him both deeply. We tried for 5 years after that and while we were back living with my parents, I found out I was pregnant again. I was able to carry her almost to full term. She was born 17 days early. She had a cleft palate, a hole in her heart, a heart murmur, what the ENT called partially frozen Eustachian tubes, fluid built up behind her eardrums which caused her to have only 20% of her hearing, a blocked tear duct, and chronic constipation. They wanted to know if I wanted a sonogram to see how the baby was developing but I told them no. Yes I could have aborted her if I had known that she had all these issues but I didn’t. After she was born she had the cleft palate repaired at 14 months old, had the tear duct unblocked and had PE tubes put in her ears. I was told that she was either going to have hearing aids or a stapedectomy which is removing one of the hearing bones and replacing it with an artificial one. I took her to church and dedicated her to God and He healed the hole in her heart, got rid of her murmur, fixed her hearing, and healed her of the chronic constipation. Was she worth it? You better believe it. She is 28 years old now and has a terrific husband. Why am I telling you this? Because having a baby is the greatest thing in the world and I thank God for my daughter every single day!!

  9. This is genocide in the making! A terrible law that should be removed, and protect the unborn. We are becoming Nazi Germany in the 21st century! I’m sick to my stomach. Does the governor have any children? What would she do, let them adopt the child instead of murdering that little soul. God pray for us. They know not what they do!!!🙏🙏🙏

  10. The women that participate in the taking of an innocent life of any means will have to answer to God Almighty on Judgement Day. They have no idea what’s in store for the when that happens!!

  11. Women do have certain rights when it comes to sex.
    1. You have the right to say no.
    2. You have the right to fight back in cases of rape.
    3. You have the right to any number of contraceptives if you are sexually active.
    4. You have the right to keep your damn legs closed if you do not want to become pregnant.
    Failing all of the above there are plenty of people who would like to adopt an unwanted child.
    Having an abortion means that some women do not have complete control of their body or their mind.

  12. Maine, you have taken the fastest way to Hell! Every woman in this State knows in her heart of hearts that abortion is wrong. What is next on the agenda, doing away with your 2year old, 3year old………. if they don’t behave?? On second thought, it is best if you don’t have children in the first place!!

    • Maybe if they use a rusty hanger there wouldn’t be so many abortions as the woman wouldn’t have a chance to have a second one!

  13. I would imagine that they will change the rules about abortions and killing of children. Lets suppose that you have a child that you don’t like so they could change the law so you could kill them as long as its before their 25 th birthday.

  14. Its a baby, a living growing developing human baby. Its your son or daughter that depend on you to make them safe and you betray them when you hire a hit man to torture and rip them apart and kill them. They have a different dna from yours. Thats why some preemies survive being born too early. They are a different person and when you stop their life its murder and that makes you a murderer. Thats nothing to be proud of. Life starts at conception because dead things dont grow. Your child is alive until you kill it. Its murder. Find another way and make sure you dont get pregnant. Pp is making it much harder to get birth control because they want you pregnant so they can make money off of killing your baby. They are using you and dont give a damn about you except to make them money off you and babies pain.

  15. Who are these animals that think that it’s okay to murder innocent human beings? Somebody must be getting paid a lot of money and, if I had to take a wild ass guess on who, I would point the accusing finger at the Democrats! Under normal circumstances, there is absolutely no need to have to resort to abortion, there are many birth control products available to both, men and women. The sad truth is, that adult sex partners either don’t care or, are too into the moment to take the necessary precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The end results? An innocent life is extinguished, before it even has the chance to see what life is all about! If nothing else, that’s horribly unfair…..

  16. And the people of this country want to vote democrat in 2020.Everyone of whom supports abortion. Think about this before you vote. Think this also,Six things God hates: One is hands that shed innocent blood. Read for yourself Proverbs 6:16. Rather than being the bless country we were, we are becoming the “baby killing” capital of the world. God is angry with America. He is slowly departing from us. I am scared for the future if we do not end this abomination;repent from our sins and pray. We end it by not electing baby killing politicians who kill our future.

        • the living elvis:Thank you. Are you referring to my comment to Aasu Murti ?If so, I have taken the time(heaven help me because I do have a life) to read all of his comments on various topics. And there is one thing this person has not learned is, sometimes you have to read between the lines to fully understand its contents.But when dealing with abortion, there is no middle ground.I do not accept the PP propaganda that spouts what actually defines when life actually begins.We of intelligence know that truth.
          Thank you again..

  17. Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to “keep abortion safe and legal,” why are they willing to have non-doctors perform abortions?!

    When I was interviewed on the abortion issue, I gave a similar response when asked:

    What should pro-life activists keep in mind when trying to convince liberals to oppose abortion, when talking to liberals about abortion?

    a) Keep the debate completely secular! The pro-choice position is entrenched in the political left. The religious right is not going to win over the secular Left on the issue of abortion by quoting Scripture or turning to unprovable religious beliefs to back up their position. Doing so will only reinforce the stereotype that pro-lifers are all religious fanatics who aren’t grounded in secular reality.

    In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, author Paul Nowak also says, “You should try as much as possible to keep religion out of the discussion.”

    This is significant. Only in the secular arena can we promote our ideals without imposing our religious beliefs on others.

    And persons using the secular arena to defend the unborn must not turn to unprovable religious beliefs to deny rights to animals. In the secular arena, one’s religious identity must be completely irrelevant.

    b) Point out the scientific fact that individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until natural death. Religion did not discover when life begins, the biologists did. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. are all stages of human development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual.

    Animal rights activists insist, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. i.e., there are no morally relevant differences between humans and other animals as far as everyday ethics are concerned.

    Pro-lifers must similarly insist, “A zygote is an embryo is a fetus is an infant is a toddler is an adolescent is an adult,” and back it up with science.

    Paul Nowak asks his readers to try and get pro-choicers to determine when they think human rights should begin; implying that since life begins at fertilization, all other criteria (viability, birth, etc.) are arbitrary.

    The real question in the abortion debate is not necessarily the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother’s privacy and civil liberties.

    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, “It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed,” because the arguments in support of abortion “could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.”

    c) Keep the debate rational. This isn’t a shouting match. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree on everything except the timing; i.e., the time to decide when to have a child is before fertilization, not after. The abortion issue is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded “baby-killers,” rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin.

    d) Avoid propagandistic euphemisms. I am forced to use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” because these are the political labels by which the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides identify themselves. But they are both misleading. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (cofounder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

    “…the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all ‘life’ under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer’s ‘reverence for life,’ or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

    “Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he did not likely commit—and a rape at that, not a murder?

    “They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Vietnam.

    “They are not ‘pro-life’; they are simply anti-abortion.”

    However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called “pro-choice” instead of “pro-abortion”:

    “This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as ‘choice’? The answer is: Almost anyone—depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for black Americans in the ‘50s and ’60s was ‘pro-choice’ with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the ‘right’ to rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

    “Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, ‘What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?’ In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan.”

    e) Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.

    For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

    The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?

    The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.

    Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically “necessary,” and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

    In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc.

    Nowak writes: “Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities.”

    Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to “keep abortion safe and legal,” why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?

  18. Murder by numbers. The famous “Pythagorean theorem” is now known to have been mathematical knowledge long before Pythagoras. Square roots and cube roots and the “Pythagorean” theorem are mentioned in the Sulbha Sutras of Bodhayana, in India. (700 BC) Bodhayana also calculated the areas of triangles, circles, trapezoids and determined the value of pi = 3.14136 in measuring and constructing temple altars. Some scholars believe Pythagoras may have received his wisdom from the East.

    What was significant about Pythagoras’ approach, however, was that he developed a method of mathematical proof of the theorem, based on deduction. Our modern tradition of mathematical proof, the basis for every kind of science, originated in the West with Pythagoras. Whereas classical Indian mathematics tended to be intuitive, the Greeks established a tradition of rigorous mathematical proofs. Pythagoras further taught that the world is well-ordered, harmonious, and may be comprehended through human reason. He was the first to use the word “cosmos” to denote a fathomable universe. According to Pythagoras, the laws of nature could be deduced purely by thought.

    During the Renaissance and the age of Enlightenment, Kepler and Newton thought of the world in terms of harmony–the order and beauty of planetary motion and the existence of mathematical laws explaining such motion, and from them came our modern scientific belief that the entire universe can be measured, quantified, and explained in terms of mathematical relationships. These ideas began with Pythagoras. “Chemistry is simply numbers,” said Dr. Carl Sagan, “an idea Pythagoras would have liked.”

    Pythagorean science was far more theoretical than experimental. However, one of Pythagoras’ students, Alcmaeon, is the first person known to have dissected a human body. He further identified arteries and veins, discovered the optic nerve and the eustachian tubes, and declared the brain to be the seat of the intellect. This final contention was denied by Aristotle, who placed intelligence in the heart. Alcmaeon also founded the science of embryology.

    The Pythagoreans also contributed to medical ethics through the Oath of Hippocrates. Hippocrates was a physician who lived in the 5th century BC. In a treatise entitled “The Sacred Disease,” he maintained that epilepsy and other illnesses were not the result of evil spirits or angry gods, but due to natural causes.

    Hippocrates has been called the “Father of Medicine,” the “wisest and greatest practitioner of his art,” and the “most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity.” Before Hippocrates, the physician studied plants and animals and had a working knowledge of both harmful and beneficial remedies. He could simultaneously heal some patients while killing others.

    Hippocrates believed in the sanctity of life and called other physicians to the highest ethical standards and conduct.

    “Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person,” observed anthropologist Margaret Mead. “He with the power to kill had the power to cure, including especially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.”

    According to Mead, the Oath of Hippocrates marked a turning point in the history of Western civilization because “for the first time in our tradition” it caused “a complete separation between curing and killing.

    “With the Greeks,” concluded Dr. Mead, “the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of the rank, age, or intellect–the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child.”

    The Oath reads:

    “I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius…I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgement, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

    “Similarly, I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion… Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.”

    During the abortion debate on USENET in 1986, pro-choicers argued the reference to abortion in the Oath was not written with respect for life, but intended to prevent “back-alley” abortions.

    The United States Supreme Court, however, clearly saw the Oath as pro-life in Roe v. Wade, downgrading the historical influence of the Oath of Hippocrates, by noting it “echoes Pythagorean doctrines,” and the Pythagoreans were a minority religion in ancient Greece.

    Dr. Herbert Ratner observes: “Hippocrates’ profound grasp of the nature of a learned profession serving one of man’s basic needs makes the Hippocratic Oath one of the great documents and classics of man, a fact not only signified by its universal inclusion in collections of the great books of Western civilization, but by the universal veneration accorded it by physicians, singly and collectively, throughout the ages…the Oath, properly constituted, becomes the one hope of preserving the unconfused role of the physician as healer.”

    American medical science consultant Dr. Andrew C. Ivy said, “The moral imperative of the Oath of Hippocrates I believe is necessary for the survival of the scientific and technical philosophy of medicine.”

    The Oath of Hippocrates and its modern equivalent, the Declaration of Geneva, enacted by the World Medical Association in 1948, are frequently cited by the American Medical Association in its prohibition against medical participation in legally authorized executions. A code of conduct for physicians as healers, as well as concern for the rights and well-being of the patient, originated with Hippocrates and the Pythagorean tradition.

    Despite these and many other outstanding contributions to ethics, medicine, music, astronomy, geometry and general science, mathematics dominated Pythagorean thought. The Pythagoreans were mathematicians as well as mystics. Pythagoras taught that the laws of Nature could be deduced through logic and reason. They delighted in the absolute certainty of mathematics, and found in it a pure and undefiled realm accessible to the human intellect. They believed that in mathematics they had glimpsed a perfect reality, a realm of the gods, of which our own world is but an imperfect reflection.

    Pythagorean theology was dualistic; it contrasted this corruptible, earthly sphere with a pure and divine realm. One’s higher nature, the eternal soul, is entangled in temporal flesh. The body is like a tomb. The soul must not become a slave to the body and its lusts. One must not fall prey to the demands of the flesh.

    Pythagoreanism exerted a profound influence upon Plato, and, later, Christian theology. In Plato’s famous parable of the cave, prisoners are tied to stakes so they can only see shadows of passerby and believe the shadows to be real–unaware of the higher reality that is accessible if they would simply turn their heads. The Pythagorean concept of a perfect and mystical world, unseen by the senses, and inaccessible to flesh and blood was also readily accepted by the early Christians.

    History tells us there were two classes of Pythagoreans. The akousmatikoi heard the teachings of the Master and followed them to a degree, but were never initiated into the deeper levels of mysticism. By contrast, the mathematikoi were strict Pythagoreans, living as ascetics, and observing the holy way of life taught by the Master.

    Pythagoras established a monastic order at Croton that soon became a vegetarian colony. After the massacre in Magna Grecia in 450 BC, the political fortunes of the Pythaoreans declined. By 350 BC, Pythagoreanism had become more of a religious sect than a philosophical school of thought. As a religion, Pythagoreanism continued to attract spiritual seekers for over seven centuries.

    Pythagorean thought was familiar to the leadership of the early Christian church. The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote that when he was a youth seeking spiritual enlightenment, he first went to the Pythagoreans. A “celebrated” Pythagorean teacher told him, however, that before he could be initiated into any kind of mysticism, he would first have to master music, geometry and astronomy.

    Discouraged, he turned to the Platonists. Their way of life may have been equally demanding. Jesus’ demands upon anyone wishing to become his disciple are well-known. (Matthew 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-23; Luke 9:57-62, 14:25-26,33, 18:18-25) These demands did not deter Justin Martyr from eventually converting to Christianity.

    Although the Pythagoreans acknowledged the minor gods of the Greek pantheon, they also recognized a Supreme Being. According to authorities within the early Christian church, the Pythagoreans were monotheists:

    “God is one; and He is not…outside of the frame of things, but within it; but, in all the entireness of His being is in the whole circle of existence…the mind and vital power of the whole world,” wrote Clement of Alexandria in Exhortation VI, quoting Pythagoras. The Pythagoreans held a pantheistic concept of God, recognizing His omnipresent Spirit, but with no knowledge of His personal qualities–a concept which the Stoics were to adopt. Like the Jews and the Zoroastrians, the Pythagoreans consequently forbade the worship of images and statues.

    First century Pythagoreanism is described in detail in The Life of Apollonius of Tiana. The ancient texts records this neoplatonic philosopher and miracle worker having a divine birth, absorbing the wisdom of Pythagoras, practicing celibacy, vegetarianism, as well as voluntary poverty; healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, exorcising demons, foretelling the future, and teaching the innermost secrets of religion. Finally, the text says he never died, but went directly to heaven in a physical assumption. Sound familiar?

    • Vasu Murti:With all due respect,every time you leave a comment, (especially on the topic of abortion or where God belongs or doesn’t belong,) I feel I’m right back in college hearing lectures from my professors.And you know what I gained from my college years? That experiencing and living life itself has been my greatest teacher.Not quoting this one and that one, throwing statistics into the mix to impress someone or try to make someone else feel silly or less educated. Especially when speaking of abortion and how so many of us see it as a abomination. .No matter what someone reads, regardless of its topic, someone will get an entirely view on its context than yourself .Even the bible.
      So please stop telling others not to bring GOD into the topic.Especially on abortion. Because my personal relationship with HIM has been my greatest teacher. As I’m quite sure it is for many others that post on this subject(s) as well.And this is my personal opinion, but the ones that keep pointing out over and over again not to discuss GOD on these websites, are atheists . Which is anyone’s choice of course.But for myself and others, what is in our hearts. What we can feel within our soul to feel compassion know abortion is wrong.That’s where I will always stand.

    • Vasu Murti;FYI Pythagoreans believed the soul could have a transmigration to another animal species. Or have a sort of reincarnation that one’s soul would occupy another body after death. So, by you ending your rather lengthy post by saying “sound familiar?”. If you are making reference to the Christian beliefs and what we follow , then NO it doesn’t sound familiar. We believe in “resurrection” , not reincarnation.
      Thank you.

    • Is reincarnationist thought compatible with Christianity? The first books of the Bible speak of man as a physical being, formed from the dust and then infused with a divine “breath of life.” New Testament writings, however, describe the individual as a spiritual being, clothed in an earthly body of flesh.

      The New Testament distinguishes between the carnal and the spiritual. “It is the Spirit that giveth the body life,” taught Jesus, “the flesh profit nothing.” (John 6:63)

      Paul taught Jesus had both an earthly and a spiritual nature (Romans 1:3), and referred to his own spiritual self. (Romans 1:9)

      The spirit is a prisoner to sin and the flesh in a body doomed to death. (Romans 7:18-24) Christians are to behave in a spiritually, rather than in a fleshly way. (Romans 8:4; 13:14; I Peter 2:11)

      The desires of the Spirit and those of the flesh are opposed to one another. (Galatians 5:13,16-17)

      Christians have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” they “live by the Spirit” and are “directed by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:19-26)

      To be carnally minded is to die. One must transcend one’s lower, bodily nature. (Rom. 8:5-14) Saving the spirit of an individual differs from the destruction of the person’s flesh. (I Corinthians 5:5)

      God’s kingdom is not carnal, but spiritual:

      “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable…For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on immortality. (I Corinthians 15:50,53)

      The body is like a lump of clay. (Romans 9:21; II Corinthians 4:7) The body decays, but the self is renewed in spiritual life. (II Corinthians 4:16-17)

      The body is a temporary tent in which the spirit resides; the spirits of the faithful will soon be clothed in everlasting, heavenly bodies. (II Corinthians 5:1-3)

      The spirit resides inside a body of flesh. (II Corinthians 10:3) To identify with the body is to be absent from the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:8-10)

      Paul wrote of being “caught up as far as the third heaven…whether in the body or out of the body I do not know…” (II Corinthians 12:2-3)

      Being with Christ differs from remaining “in the body;” one’s self is separate from the physical body. (Philippians 1:21-24)

      Christians are to set their sights on heavenly, not earthly things, and to put to death their earthly nature. (Colossians 3:1-5)

      The flesh decays, but the word of God is eternal. (I Peter 2:23-25) To love this world is to alienate oneself from God’s love, because the passions of this world are temporary. (I John 2:15-17) This world belongs to the devil (II Corinthians 4:4); this present world is evil (Galatians 1:4).

      God rewards each individual according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6) One reaps what one sows. (II Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7) Some souls remain entangled in decaying flesh, while others turn to the Spirit.

      “The one who sows for his own flesh will harvest ruin from his flesh; while the one who sows for the Spirit will harvest eternal life from the Spirit.” (Galatians 6:8)

      A kernel of spirit is placed in a body:

      “…God gives it a body as He plans, and to each seed its particular body. All flesh is not the same; but one kind is human, another is animal, another is fowl, and another fish.” (I Corinthians 15:38-39)

      The New Testament also distinguishes between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies:

      “There are heavenly bodies and also earthly bodies; but the radiance of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly is another kind.” (I Corinthians 15:40)

      Resurrection in the New Testament is not the Old Testament doctrine of the reassembling of dust into living bodies, but rather, the clothing of the spirit with a new body; the placing of a kernel of spirit into a new body, from where its existence continues.

      The New Testament emphasizes the distinction between the soul and the body, the clothing of the soul with a new body, and the eternal nature of the soul and its relationship to God versus the temporary nature of the flesh and the material world.

      These concepts can all be found in the doctrine of reincarnation.

      ****

      During the second century, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, taught that the soul inhabits more than one body in its earthly sojourn.

      He even suggested that those who lead carnal lives and thus deprive themselves of the capacity to serve God may be reborn as beasts.

      The earliest Christians who taught the pre-existence of the soul came to be known as the “pre-existiani.” Clement of Alexandria wrote with interest about what he called metensomatosis.

      “…we have existed from the beginning,” wrote Clement in his Stromata, “for in the beginning was the Logos… Not for the first time does (the Logos) show pity on us in our wanderings; he pitied us from the beginning.”

      Origen (185-254), was one of the fathers of the early Christian church, and its most accomplished biblical scholar. His influence upon the early church was second only to that of Augustine.

      Origen taught that God creates spirits, and all spirits are created equal. All are endowed with free will. Some fall into sin, becoming demons, or imprisoned in bodies. This process of growth or retardation is continuous.

      A human being, at the time of death, may become an angel or a demon. Origen gave a highly allegorical interpretation of Genesis and the Fall from paradise.

      Origen held that the various orders of living creatures in the world corresponded to the varying degrees of perfection and imperfection.

      All of God’s children are created free and equal, but received their present condition “as rewards or punishments for the manner in which they used their free will.”

      Therefore, “as befits the degree of (the soul’s) fall into evil, it is clothed with the body of this or that irrational animal.”

      Writing in the third century, he explained: ”

      By some inclination toward evil, certain souls… come into bodies, first of men; then through their association with the irrational passions, after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of… plants.

      “From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place.”

      (De Principiis, Book III, Chapter 5)

      According to Origen, God sent forth Christ to bring about the redemption of all souls; a salvation so universal, even the demons will be saved. “The purified spirit will be brought home; it will no longer rebel; it will acquiesce in its lot.”

      Origen based his theology upon passages from Scripture. The prophet Elijah lived in the 9th century B.C. Elijah never died, but was lifted up into heaven. (II Kings 2:11) In the closing lines of the Old Testament, Malachi recorded the prophecy: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” (Malachi 3:1, 4:5) Elijah would precede the Messiah.

      When the disciples asked Jesus about the prophecy that Elijah must precede the Messiah, Jesus replied, “Elijah will come indeed and will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him, but have done to him as they pleased.” The disciples then realized he was talking about John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:9-13)

      Jesus even told the multitudes, “It is he (John) of whom it is written, ‘Behold I send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare the road before you’…If you will accept it, this is Elijah who was to come.” (Matthew 11:10,14; Luke 7:27)

      Many in Jesus’ day believed him to be the reincarnation of an Old Testament prophet. In Matthew 16:13-14, when Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” they replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”

      Similarly, in Luke 9:18-19, when Jesus asked, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” his disciples respond, “John the Baptist; but some say Elijah, and others that one of the old prophets has risen again.”

      Mark 16:14-16 records King Herod saying of Jesus, “John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore these miracles are being done by him.” Others said, “He is Elijah,” while still others believed, “He is a prophet like one of the prophets of old.”

      Tertullian, one of the earliest of the Latin Fathers of the Christian Church, vehemently attacked any and all reincarnationist interpretations of Scripture. His attacks indicate the widespread influence of reincarnationist thought upon Christianity at the time.

      Tertullian took the position that the above passages do not presuppose reincarnation. Since Elijah was lifted into heaven (II Kings 2:11), he never died. His appearance as John the Baptist was not reincarnation, but a return visit. However the Gospel of Luke (1:5-25,57-80) indicates that Elijah did not return to earth as a mature man, but was miraculously reconceived and reborn as John the Baptist.

      Origen remarked that the fact that the Jews specifically asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah (John 1:21) indicated “that they believed in metensomatosis, as a doctrine inherited from their ancestors and therefore in no way in conflict with the secret teachings of their masters.”

      In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus and his disciples encounter a man who had been blind from his birth. The disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents? Why was he born blind?”

      Since reincarnation was a widespread belief during the time of Jesus, (as were beliefs in apocalypses, judgement day, heaven, hell and resurrection), one cannot help but wonder if the disciples had reincarnation in mind. For if the man had been born blind, he could not have committed the sin in his present life.

      Jesus did not reject the notion of pre-existence as a solution to the problem of evil. He merely replied that this man was afflicted so that “the works of God should be displayed in him,” and that it was their duty to practice the works of a merciful God. (John 9:4)

      On another occasion, Simon (Peter) said to Jesus, “Look, we have given up everything and have followed you…”

      Jesus replied: “I assure you, there is no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mothers or father or children or fields on account of me and the gospel, but will receive a hundred times over now in this age homes and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life.” (Matthew 19:27,29; Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30)

      It’s hard to imagine these rewards—including hundreds of relatives, parents and children—being fulfilled in one brief lifetime.

      “So where to now St. Peter?
      “If it’s true I’m in your hands?

      “I may not be a Christian
      “But I’ve done all one man can

      “I understand I’m on the road
      “Where all that was is gone

      “So where to now St. Peter?
      “Show me which road I’m on

      “Which road I’m on…”

      –Elton John, “Where to Now, St. Peter?” (1970)

      In the 3rd century, Chalcidius taught, “Souls who have failed to unite themselves with God, are compelled by the law of destiny to begin a new kind of life, entirely different from their former, until they repent of their sins.”

      Arnobius (A.D. 290) said, “We die many times, and often do we rise from the dead.” (Adversus Gentes)

      St. Gregory of Nyssa (257-332) taught, “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives.” (Great Catechism)

      St. Jerome (340-420), wrote in Epistola ad Demetriadem, that “The doctrine of transmigration has been secretly taught from ancient times to small numbers of people, as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged.”

      In his Confessions, St. Augustine (354-430) prayed, “Say, Lord to me… say, did my infancy succeed another age of mine that died before it? Was it that which I spent within my mother’s womb?…and what before that life again, O God my joy, was I anywhere or in any body?”

      Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais (370-430), wrote in his Treatise On Dreams:

      “Philosophy speaks of souls being prepared by a course of transmigrations… When first it comes down to earth, it (the soul) embarks on this animal spirit as on a boat, and through it is brought into contact with matter…

      “The soul which did not quickly return to the heavenly region from which it was sent down to earth had to go through many lives of ‘wandering.'”

      Although belief in reincarnation was widespread in early Christianity, orthodoxy prevailed. The doctrine of reincarnation never really caught on, in part, because of the apocalyptic mood of the early church. The Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead were thought to be imminent.

      During the fourth century, Origen became an easy target for ecclesiastical authorities seeking victory in power struggles with other theological factions within the Christian church.

      Under circumstances that to this day remain shrouded in mystery, the Byzantine emperor Justinian in AD 553 banned the teachings of pre-existence from what had by then become the Roman Catholic Church. During that era, numerous Church writings were destroyed.

      The doctrine of reincarnation was forced underground, but persistently appeared in sects such as the Cathari, the Paulicians, and the Bogomils.

      The Cathari (who were also vegetarian) taught that the reason we are on earth in the first place is we are fallen souls forced to be repeatedly incarcerated in bodies, and must seek salvation from transmigrating from one body to another. The Cathari saw Christ as the means of divine redemption from the wheel of death and rebirth.

      The Cathari were a medieval heretical Christian sect believing in metaphysical dualism — a distinction between the spirit Vs the flesh… to the point of reincarnation. Albi, France, became the center of Cathari influence. Thus the sect came to be known as the Albigensians. Their sect consisted of two levels of service: the ordinary believers or “hearers” and members of the pious category, the “venerate.”

      Members of the venerate abstained from nearly all animal foods, and the hearers were strongly encouraged to adopt this abstemious diet.

      A passage from a Catharist book written in the middle of the 13th century says:

      “…you will make this commitment to God: that you will never knowingly or of your own will, eat cheese, milk, the flesh of birds, or creeping things, or of animals, as prohibited by the Church of God.”

      It appears that many Albigensians were resolute in their opposition to killing animals for food, as their vegetarianism was used by ecclesiastical authorities within the Roman Catholic Church to detect heresy. Many heretics chose death and even torture to apostasy. A group of heretics were hanged at Goslar in 1052 for their refusal to kill a chicken.

      Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and author of over twenty books, believes reincarnation is compatible with the Christian faith.

      According to Dr. MacGregor: “Reincarnation is, of course, a kind of resurrection. Great importance was attached by Christian theologians, however, to the notion of the resurrection of the ‘same body’ that we now have, though in a glorified form.

      “The so-called Athanasian Creed affirms that all men shall rise again with their bodies… and a council held at the Lateran… asserted that all shall rise again with their own bodies…

      “…such very Latin teaching about a carnis resurrectio does not seem to fit Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, which is that the body is to be of a new order… not otherwise recognizable as the same body as the one on earth.

      “The curious notion of the revivification of the material particles of the body does not arise in St. Paul.”

      Dr. MacGregor explains that conflicting theological and scriptural accounts of the afterlife have caused many, including regular churchgoers, not to concern themselves with such affairs.

      Many Christian theologians have discouraged “idle speculation” on the afterlife. Luther recognized the theological difficulties, while Calvin, in a commentary on I Corinthians 13:12, questioned his own doctrine of the eternality of the soul.

      According to Calvin, Paul intentionally gave no details on the subject, since details “could not help our piety.”

      Dr. MacGregor suggests, however, that just as we have ceased to take literally Archbishop Ussher’s biblical concept of a 6,000 year old universe, so also might reincarnation be consistent with a more enlightened world view.

      During the Renaissance, a new flowering of public interest in reincarnation emerged. One of the prominent figures in this revival was Italy’s leading philosopher and poet Giordano Bruno.

      Bruno had entered the Dominican Order at the age of fifteen. As a scholar, Bruno upheld the Copernican world view, that the Sun — and not the earth — is the center of our cosmos, teaching that there are an infinity of worlds and that many are inhabited.

      Galileo had announced other worlds and Giordano Bruno spoke of other life forms. Bruno believed there are no privileged reference frames for viewing the universe; the universe looks essentially the same from wherever one happens to view it. Bruno taught that at death the soul passes out of one body and enters into another.

      Because of his teachings, Bruno was ultimately brought before the Inquisition. In his profession of faith before the Inquisition, Bruno acknowledged that, speaking as a Catholic, he must say that the soul at death goes directly to heaven, hell or purgatory.

      However, Bruno insisted that as a philosopher who had given much thought to the question, he found it reasonable that since the soul is different from the body, yet is never found apart from the body, it passes from one body to another, as Pythagoras had taught 2,000 years before.

      In his final answers to the charges brought against him, Bruno defiantly responded that the soul “is not the body” and that “it may be in one body or in another, and pass from body to body.”

      Giordano Bruno was eventually burned at the stake in Rome on February 17, 1600. His teachings influenced 17th century philosophers such as Leibniz and Spinoza.

      “Has it occurred to you that transmigration is at once an explanation and a justification of the evil of the world?” wrote W. Somerset Maugham in The Razor’s Edge.

      “If the evils we suffer are the result of sins committed in our past lives, we can bear them with resignation and hope that if in this one we strive toward virtue our future lives will be less afflicted.”

      Sir William Jones, a Christian missionary who helped introduce East Indian philosophy to Europe in the 18th century, wrote:

      “I am no Hindu, but I hold the doctrine of the Hindus concerning a future state (reincarnation) to be incomparably more rational, more pious, and more likely to deter men from vice than the horrid opinions inculcated by Christians on punishment without end.”

      In his monumental book, The Story of Christian Origins, secular historian Dr. Martin A. Larson notes that according to Hindu, Buddhist, and Pythagorean doctrine, “hell itself was actually a kind of purgatory, since it was a place in which perhaps a majority of all people underwent repeated refinement and punishment,” before being reborn as a plant, animal, or human being.

      Examining the concept of eternal damnation, Dr. Geddes MacGregor concludes:

      “It is no wonder that purgatory seemed by comparison, despite its anguish, a demonstration of God’s mercy. Purgatory is indeed a far more intelligible concept, in the light of what the Bible says about the nature of God. Even the crassest forms of purgatory suggest moral and spiritual evolution.

      “Surely, too, even countless rebirths as a beggar lying in misery and filth on the streets of Calcutta would be infinitely more reconcilable to the Christian concept of God than is the traditional doctrine of everlasting torture in hell.

      “The appeal of reincarnationism to anyone nurtured on hell-fire sermons and tracts is by no means difficult to understand.”

      Archbishop Passavalli (1820-1897), a learned Roman Catholic archbishop accepted the teaching of reincarnation from two disciples of the Polish seer Towianski.

      Archbishop Passavalli admitted that reincarnation is not condemned by the Church, and that it is not in conflict with any Catholic dogma.

      Another Catholic priest who came to believe in reincarnation was Edward Dunski, whose Letters were published in 1915.

      Many other priests in Poland and Italy have believed in reincarnation, influenced by the great mystic Andrzej Towianski (1799-1878).

      In her autobiography, A Servant of the Queen, Maude Gonne wrote that when a priest asked her why she was not a Catholic, and she replied, “Because I believe in reincarnation,” she was told:

      “The soul comes from God and returns to God when purified, when all things will become clear; and who can tell the stages of its purification? It may be possible that some souls work out their purification on this earth.”

      The Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopal priest in New York, says, “In the Second Letter of Peter, the word exitus (‘exit’ or ‘a way out’) is used for ‘dying.’ The expression implies that something does exist which at death goes away, or ‘exits’ the body.

      “Reincarnation would explain a great many things–such as just where the soul goes after death. After all, it is unlikely that a merciful God would send a sinner to ‘hell’ after just one birth into this… world… It takes time…

      “Reincarnation was also accepted by many philosophers in the early church. To my way of thinking it is a logical explanation of what happens at the time of death. Reincarnation is an acceptable answer.”

      ****

      The doctrine of reincarnation first fell into disfavor in the early church beginning with Augustine, who wrote: “Let these Platonists stop threatening us with reincarnation as punishment for our souls. Reincarnation is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a return to this life for the punishment of souls…”

      As a result of this thinking, Western theology has been unable to resolve the ‘problem of evil.’ Why does a merciful and omnipotent God allow suffering and injustice? Why, for example, are some people born handicapped, or into poverty, while others are born into wealth and privilege?

      The reincarnationist explanation is karma: we reap what we sow. We are suffering and enjoying according to the deeds we committed in innumerable previous lifetimes, and our deeds in this present lifetime dictate our future — in 8,400,000 different species of life.

      Rabbi Harold S. Kushner caused a theological controversy back in the early 1980s, with his book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Kushner’s solution to the ‘problem of evil’ is that God is not omnipotent! There are limits to His power. God is just as outraged as we are at the injustices in the world, but there’s nothing He can do to stop them.

      Asking millions of synagogue-and-church-and-mosque going Americans to take up an Eastern religion, worship a long-haired, flute-playing, blue God, and believe in karma and reincarnation may sound crazy and radical, but we now find mainstream Americans doing something even more radical: they are becoming worshipers of God-the-not-Almighty.

      Brother Ron Pickarski, a vegan chef and Franciscan monk, said in an interview in historian Rynn Berry’s 1998 book, Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism & the World’s Religions, he believes Christianity will one day embrace reincarnation and vegetarianism.

      As for scientific proof of reincarnation: research by credible scientists into mind-body dualism suggests it is a real possibility. These include the research on near-death experiences by Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist and professor at Emory University, and the past life memory research of Dr. Ian Stevenson, Carlson professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia.

      • Vasu: I have had near-death-experience and believe me I was not shown ANYTHING related to reincarnation! As others that have had a NDE.An other many scientific tests have shown( without boring others posting with a very long posting as you do with your smoke and mirror facts) that past life memories are a bunch of bunk!!
        Did you ever wonder why most do not respond to your postings? Because you, and another that used to post, just spew your Liberal propaganda and no one is interested.I have tried to be kind to you by responding to three of your postings.But it ends today.You are a pompous, self righteous educated fool that relies on others so called “facts” to guide your life.GO OUT AND EXPERIENCE LIFE FOR YOURSELF! You just might see things differently….

        • “Is reincarnationist thought compatible with Christianity?”… ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!! If you actually bothered to study the Bible you would know that. It is very simple. Jesus said that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgement. You have no concept at all of what the Bible teaches. That is very obvious.

          • ????? I don’t why this showed up under your posting, Linda. I did not put it there. I was responding to Vasu.

          • bj:That’s alright. I was wondering why you were angry at me. Then I saw your second post and that explained your original post to Vasu.
            I have been very patient with Vasu with responding to his posts.But he just keeps posting and posting and he just pushed me over the edge. Even though the names I called him were not vile.Curt perhaps, but there is no reasoning with him .I don’t think he’s a bad person. Just misguided and totally buys all the propaganda the Democrats.

        • Sigh. Linda, there’s no need for personal attacks. I respond to your arguments as concisely as possible, whereas you fail to read all I’ve written and then think things through.

          • WHY would anyone read all that you write!!!! You insist on writing a book every time you post. Try a condensed version. You don’t know what you are saying anyway. You need to actually STUDY the Bible. You know nothing at all about God or what it teaches.

  19. Not only should nurses and P.As not be allowed to perform this cold-blooded murder, but NO human being should ! Nor should they WANT to ! Our society has become evil, embarrassing, hateful, and mentally disturbed to the point of unreality. All due to Liberalism and the lack of outrage and action by the Right. God Save Us.

  20. Hooray for Maine for standing you to all the blather from the pro-birthers.

    BTW, a few questions:
    If a fetus is a person, may a pregnant woman drive in the 2+ HOV lane?
    if a fetus is a person, must a pregnant woman have to pay for 2 plane tickets?
    If a fetus is a person, must a pregnant woman have to pay for 2 rickets at the movies?

    • Life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact. It is a BABY from the moment it is conceived and abortion is the MURDER of a helpless innocent human being. You have no clue what you are even talking about. It is ALWAYS a person, just not yet fully developed in the womb.

    • Pro-birthers??????? So supporting the right of a baby to live outside the womb is wrong? It is the same baby whether in or out of the womb. It is cold-blooded murder to kill a baby.

    • Don Poggendorf: You sound very frustrated in your posting.At first I could not understand why. Then I realized who your post was directed at Culture Watch.I hope this helps, but” sometimes” you must go back to your email because Culture Watch will send you an email for you to confirm your post first, then they will post it.But on the other hand, for some reason they won’t post it at all. I’ve had several dropped myself.For what reason, I just don’t know. But if my first suggestion doiesn’t work, just try to resend it again.

  21. Could someone answer my question, when someone kills and expectant mother, he/she is also charged for
    the murder of the unborn baby, but an abortionist could kill the same baby and its legal. I am not a liberal,
    so I do not understant this!!!!!!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here