Bought by the Blood

June 21, 2011

Interpreting Abortion Biblically

The problem in American society when conservatives or liberals think about abortion is they think about the rights of women or the rights of the unborn.  Before any discussion about abortion happens, the first thought has to be about the rights of God.  John Piper has the following to say about the idea of God’s creator rights

The biblical mindset is not simply one that includes God somewhere in the universe and says that the Bible is true. The biblical mindset begins with a radically different starting point, namely, God. God is the basic given reality in the universe. He was there before we were in existence – or before anything was in existence. He is simply the most absolute reality.

And so the biblical mindset starts with the assumption that God is the center of reality. All thinking starts with the assumption that God has basic rights as the Creator of all things. He has goals that fit with his nature and perfect character. Then the biblical mindset moves out from this center and interprets the world, with God and his rights and goals as the measure of all things.

What the biblical mindset sees as basic problems in the universe are usually not the same problems that the secular mindset sees. The reason for this is that what makes a problem is not, first, that something doesn’t fit the rights and needs of man, but that it doesn’t fit the rights and goals of God. If you start with man and his rights and wants, rather than starting with the Creator and his rights and goals, the problems you see in the universe will be very different.

Is the basic riddle of the universe how to preserve man’s rights and solve his problems?(You can listen to or read the rest of that message here)

Today and yesterday Focus on The Family had a great program on helping men heal who have lost children to abortion.  One of the great points that they made is that you can’t just ask for forgiveness for taking the life of the unborn.  Healing is not found until we are reconciled to God by asking God for forgiveness for taking the life of His Son.

As the hymn, “I will glory In My Redeemer” states, “Mine was the sin that drove the bitter nails and hung Him on that judgement tree.”  Abortion can’t be rightly understood apart from the cross. The greatest offense isn’t an infringement upon a woman’s right or the loss of the unborn’s life.  The greatest offense is that God has been taken off of his throne so that we may live as we want with a disregard for His rule and way.

Once God is the starting point of the abortion debate, there is no middle ground or gray area.  He is the creator of life, all humans, born and unborn are made in His image.  Without the Bible as the standard of truth then there is no way to say if abortion is right or wrong.  If the cross is taken out of the equation then there is no healing for those who have chosen abortion.  A sovereign God who intends good has to be our guide or what reason is there to choose life?

September 24, 2010

Why Abortion Isn’t Health Care

Filed under: Abortion,pro-life — cubsfan1980 @ 9:41 pm
Tags: , ,

I am almost a week behind this one, but I recently came across an article from last Sunday’s Washington Post that I can’t help but to share.  It is called, “Abortion Does Not Further Children’s Health” and is by Republican Chris Smith.  People who know me know that I am passionately pro-life.  This is not because I do not believe in a woman’s right to choose.  The reality is that abortion is never a choice that is in the best interest of the mother and the baby.  Here are several great excerpts from the article.

“Abortion is, by definition, infant mortality, and it undermines the achievement of the fourth Millennium Development Goal. There is nothing benign or compassionate about procedures that dismember, poison, induce premature labor or starve a child to death. Indeed, the misleading term “safe abortion” misses the point that no abortion — legal or illegal — is safe for the child and that all are fraught with negative health consequences, including emotional and psychological damage, for the mother.

Talk of “unwanted children” reduces children to mere objects, without inherent human dignity and whose worth depends on their perceived utility or how much they’re wanted. One merely has to look at the scourge of human trafficking and the exploitation of children for forced labor or child soldiering to see where such disregard for the value of life leads…

We have known for more than 60 years what actually saves women’s lives: skilled attendance at birth, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre- and post-natal care…many nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world”

April 16, 2010

Why Abortion Isn’t An Option For Babies With Down Syndrome

Filed under: Abortion,Adoption,down's syndrome,pro-life,Uncategorized — cubsfan1980 @ 9:54 am
Tags: ,

My heart recently broke as I read the story about the twins that were aborted as a reseult of selective reductionism gone wrong.  A Florida woman was pregnant with twins and the pregnancy was going fine when she was at 16 weeks.  I can’t even imagine the joy of the parents knowing they were pregnant with two kids after years of struggling to get pregnant since this pregnancy was only possible through in-vitro fertilization.  The parents decided to get an amniocentesis test and they found out one of the babies may potentially have down syndrome and another defect.  They opt for a selective reduction and choose to have the Down’s Syndrome baby aborted and keep the healthy one.  Dr. Matthew Kachinas had never performed a selective reduction before, but he hated to tell parents “no.”  Once the abortion is over Dr. Kachinas realizes he has aborted the healthy baby.  The parent’s not wanting a baby with down syndrome, but no longer having the healthy child in the womb decided to have the baby with down syndrome aborted also.  They have now gone from expecting twins, to no longer pregnant at all.

Dr. Mohler in his blog asks what is wrong with the confusing morality of America as our nation is more concerned about the wrong baby being aborted instead of the fact that the doctor is ready to abort the baby because it isn’t what the parents envisioned. “Consider what this means for the sanctity of human life. We are now looking at babies as consumer products. We will accept babies that meet our specified qualifications, and abort when medical tests or other factors reveal that the baby does not meet our standards. Human life is reduced to just another consumer product subject to consumer preferences and demand.”  You can read the rest of Dr. Mohler’s thoughts herehttp://www.albertmohler.com/2010/04/14/newsnote-aborting-the-wrong-baby/

If you are or you know of some someone considering aborting a child because of a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome I’d encourage you to look into Reece’s Rainbow.  Reece’s Rainbow is a non-profit organization that advocates and aids in the adoption of children born with Down Syndrome.  There are many people eager and ready to love a Down’s Syndrome child.  The pro-choice movement doesn’t want you to know this, but there is an actually a growing trend of people looking for Down’s Syndrome babies to adopt.  You can read about how it is gaining popularity here.  Please pray for Reece’s Rainbow and other organizations that support adoptions babies with Down’s Syndrome.

For More information please go to:

Florida Doctor Aborts Wrong Fetus in Twins
Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License for Killing Wrong Twin in Failed Abortion

Doctor Terminates Wrong Fetus, Loses License
Doctor’s license revoked after botched abortion
Group promotes adoption of Down syndrome babies

Adopting or Releasing a Child with Down Syndrome

April 15, 2010

Groundbreaking Pro-Life Legislation

Filed under: Abortion — cubsfan1980 @ 8:42 pm
Tags: , ,
Last night I got a text message from a friend asking that I pray that the Supreme Court does not overturn the new pro-life legislature in Nebraska.  This is a piece of legislation is monumental and many believe it challenges the foundation of the Roe V. Wade decision.  Nebraska’s new pro-life legislation is one which makes abortion illegal after 20 weeks on the basis of fetal pain (except for the case of medical emergency, the mother’s death is imminent or a serious risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”)

Most states have a law which forbids abortion after the baby is viable, which is at the earliest 22 weeks, although that can vary from case to case.  Even though there is a two week difference, this legislation is ground breaking because scientific evidence for fetal pain has never been used by the courts before.  The following is from an article in the New York Times on this legislation.  To read the whole article go to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

What is perhaps most notable about the law is that it takes aim at abortions from an utterly different perspective — the possibility of fetal pain — than states have tried historically, said officials at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on reproductive health and rights.

In some states that mandate counseling for women considering abortions, the women are told of a possibility that fetuses may have the capacity to feel pain. But no other state cites that possibility as part of a law restricting abortions.

After the death of George Tiller, a doctor in Nebraska by the name of Leroy Carhart wanted to take his place as the leader of performing late term abortions.  This would, according to one pro-life group, make Nebraska the late term abortion capital of the midwest.  Statistics are showing that America is becoming more pro-life and this is one proof of it, as this bill is the result of Nebraskans not wanting their state to become known for late term abortion.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, has been quoted as saying this about the bill,”If some of these other anti-abortion bills have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade, this takes an ax to it.” Please pray that this is what is needed to sharpen the axe to taken down Roe V. Wade.

For more information please go to:

NE Fetal Pain Bill Advanced: Late-Term Bills In Two States Could Limit Carhart’s Abortion Business
Nebraska Moves Ahead with Abortion Ban Based on Fetal Pain
A Strategy for the Next Supreme Court Abortion Battle?

March 21, 2010

President Obama’s Executive Order Will Not Protect The Unborn

Filed under: Abortion,Obama — cubsfan1980 @ 8:18 pm
Tags: , ,

I just posted this over at the We The Posterity Blog and wanted to share it here as well

Being in the dark ages and not owning a smart phone, I don’t get the news as quickly as others.  My first glance of cnn.com I thought I saw good news about health care reform as Stupak announced that an agreement was reached which would protect the sanctity of human life.

Unfortunately, this agreement comes from an executive order that President Obama has agreed to sign which would prohibit federal funds from going towards abortion.  On the surface there seems to be promise, but as we dig deeper Obamacare is not as pro-life as Pelosi, Obama and others would want us to believe.

However, if the bill excludes federal funding for abortion, why is an executive order necessary?

The answer, of course, is that President Obama and the Democratic leadership know that the Senate health care reform bill includes subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortions, could possibly lead to abortion coverage mandates for insurance companies, and does not prevent other funds in the legislation from directly paying for abortions.

The question then becomes, can an executive order correct all of the abortion-related problems in the bill?

The answer is a resounding no. While a carefully worded executive order might be able to take care of some of the mandate concerns, it cannot correct all of the abortion-related problems with the bill. A statute cannot be undone by an executive order or regulation. For example, an Executive Order cannot prevent insurance plans that pay for abortions and participate in the newly-created exchanges from receiving federal subsidies, because this allowance is explicitly written in the bill…

Further, Executive Orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. In spite of the fact that the American people overwhelmingly do not want to see their tax dollars go toward abortion, we continue to see restrictions on federal funding for abortions reduced to executive orders, appropriations riders, and regulations. The majority of Americans want to see a prohibition on federal funding for abortion included in permanent, statutory law.

Congress failed to deliver a statutory prohibition on abortion funding in health care reform, and an executive order cannot do the job.

The following is a statement that Charmaine Yoest, from Americans United For Life made to the press.  You can read the full thing here: http://blog.aulaction.org/2010/03/21/yoest-executive-order-won%E2%80%99t-stop-taxpayer-funded-abortion/

Once again, the proposal to address the problem of abortion funding in the health care bill through use of an executive order is a tacit acknowledgement that the bill as it stands is pro-abortion legislation. Both the President and the Speaker have repeatedly denied this stark fact.

Furthermore, the AUL legal team has concluded that an executive order is not an adequate fix to mitigate the Senate bill’s establishment of taxpayer-funded abortion.  For example, an executive order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions in the exchanges from receiving federal subsidies.

In addition, executive orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. President Obama revoked the Mexico City Policy, through the use of an executive order, and thereby allowed federal tax dollars to finance organizations that provide abortions internationally for the first time in years.

This fact, coupled with the Administration’s repeated endorsement of the pro-abortion lobby’s agenda, force any reasonable person to conclude that this bill will clearly create the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history.

In summary, the two big takeaways that we need to remember is that 1)An executive order cannot prevent federal funds from paying for abortions and 2)The language in the original bill did not prohibit abortion from being funded by tax payer dollars.  If it did, then there would be no need for an executive order.  Please continue to pray for our nation and the unborn.

January 29, 2010

State Of The Union

Filed under: Abortion,Barrack Obama,pro-life — cubsfan1980 @ 3:25 pm
Tags: , ,

Unfortunately I missed the State of Union Address, but I thought these thoughts on it were provoking.

Speaking of our humanitarian efforts around the world during last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama said:

“America must always stand on the side of human dignity and freedom.”

Yes, Mr. President, America must stand for these things, they are the principles that our country was founded on. Unfortunately, after 37 years of Government sanctioned abortion, we as a country have denied the dignity of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our own society and deprived them of their first and most basic human freedom – the right to Life.

Seems to me, if we’re going to promote human dignity and freedom throughout the world, we should begin by promoting it right here in our own country.

via Reflections of a Paralytic » SOTU Line of the Night.

January 22, 2010

A Missional Way for the Pro-Life Passion

Filed under: Abortion,Gospel,Missions,pro-life — cubsfan1980 @ 11:38 am
Tags: , , , ,

Lots of pro-life news and links are going out today with this being the 37th anniversary of the Roe V. Wade decision.  If you read anything, I would highly recommend Jared Wilson’s article “The Gospel-Driven Church: A Missional Way for the Pro-Life Passion.”

The five parts to a missional way for the Pro-Life Passions are

  1. Gospel-Centered Preaching
  2. Reframing the Abortion Discussion
  3. Creating Cultures of Adoption and Rescue
  4. Prophets, not pundits
  5. Technology, technology, technology
  6. Love

January 16, 2010

Amazing Pro-Life Testimony

Filed under: Abortion,Gospel,pro-life,Redemption — cubsfan1980 @ 4:01 pm
Tags: ,

If you have 20 free minutes I’d highly recommend going to this blog and watching the videos.

STAND FOR LIFE: Catherine’s Amazing Testimony.

It is the amazing testimony of a woman who has had an abortion and the miracle that God performed by bringing her to faith in Christ and helping her to see the gift of life.

January 14, 2010

Bart Stupak On Why Health Care Reform Can’t Contain Federal Funding For Abortion

Filed under: Abortion,Bart Stupak,Health Care,pro-life — cubsfan1980 @ 12:39 pm
Tags: , ,

Below is an excerpt from an editorial that Bart Stupak wrote for The Detroit News. You can read the rest here. Let’s continue to pray for him as he defends the rights of the preborn. (Emphasis added is mine).

There continues to be a great deal of discussion surrounding abortion language in the health care bill and the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment specifically. Let me be clear: Our amendment maintains current law that says no federal funding for abortion.

Further, not one person has been able to show where the actual language in our amendment is different from language in the Hyde amendment that has been in effect for the past 33 years.

Under our amendment, private plans within the health insurance exchange can offer abortion services and individuals purchasing plans with their own money can choose a plan that covers abortion as long as they are not receiving government subsidies to help pay for the plan. Our amendment even includes provisions that explicitly state individuals, even those who receive federal subsidies, may purchase separate abortion coverage with private funds.

While many accusations have been thrown around in recent months, the intent behind the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts amendment is simple and clear — to continue current law of no federal funding for abortions.

Two recent polls from Washington Post-ABC News and CNN found 61 percent of Americans do not want taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. Another report just released by Rasmussen found 53 percent of voters favor a ban on abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal subsidies.

Those upset about our amendment in the House legislation do not think I should be voting pro-life. They fail to mention it was the support from pro-life Democrats that provided the critical votes needed to pass health care reform in the House.

Though our amendment maintains current law and is squarely in line with public opinion, the Senate failed to pass similar language. Instead, the Senate bill includes an amendment that would implement a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage and recognize abortion as a benefit in a federal health plan.

It would also segregate funds to pay for abortion coverage in a way that has never been allowed under the Hyde language.

While many pro-life House Democrats and I wish to see health care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable because it allows federal funds to subsidize plans that cover abortions. I will continue to work to ensure the final health care reform bill considered in the House and Senate maintains current law of no public funding for abortion.

Finally, I have long been an advocate of health care reform. Too many Americans have gone far too long without access to basic health care services they need, and it is past time to put an end to that injustice. But the key issues of fairness, competition and cost must be addressed in the final health care bill.

While it is time to pass health care reform legislation in this nation, we must not overturn more than 30 years of federal policy preventing public funding of abortion.

January 12, 2010

Being A Compassionate Pro-Lifer

Filed under: Abortion,Focus on The Family,pro-life — cubsfan1980 @ 10:02 am
Tags: , ,

I love this quote from Ryan Dobson:

“I saw a documentary on abortion called “South Dakota.”  I don’t have the ability to debate abortion.  I am adopted.  I have a child.  We have also lost babies.  So when I understand that people do that on purpose I don’t have the ability to debate that rationally, so I don’t.  I talk about it with people that agree with me, that believe what we believe, that we concur, that we feel energized and we love babies, but I don’t debate that.  I was watching the movie “South Dakota,” there was a woman on there talking and she is in her early 70’s.  She is an abortion doctor and has probably performed probably 60,000 abortions personally.  It makes me literally sick to my stomach.  I went home and just went to bed.  I was so depressed, I was so sick to my stomach.  But she was talking about her time in Africa when she was 18 years old and doing a medical missions.  She was in a trip over there doing some kind of humanitarian effort and a friend of hers got pregnant.  She was from a tribe that would have stoned her and killed her had she come back being pregnant and unmarried.  Her friend went and got an unsafe abortion and came home that night and developed a fever and started hemorrhaging and literally died in her arms.  She was 19 when this took place, and in her early 70’s recalling this. and literally weeping on camera talking about that, weeping and it was a bitter, hurtful, mourning, sorrowful weeping.  And I thought, “Why would I ever beat that woman up with my knowledge about the unborn?” Do I agree with what she is doing, absolutely not.  Do I understand her reaction towards seeing that, I do, I understand. It doesn’t mean I agree.  It doesn’t mean I won’t fight against abortion for the rest of my life with everything I’ve got. If i met her I would put my arms around her and say, “I am so sorry for your loss.” and try to find some commonality that would allow us to have a conversation together. I don’t want to debate that woman. That would be a terrible Christian witness.  Hurting people need to have people put their arms around them. “

You can listen to it in context here

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.