Why Christianity became the Roman Empire's religion

Christianity became the Roman Empire’s designated religion in less than 300 years from Christ’s resurrection. Its success came from opposing abortion and female infanticide, treating women almost equally and giving them more opportunities, loving neighbours and caring for the sick and poor, and having courageous martyrs (Herald Sun 17/9/12 p20, 21).

Scalia calls Roe v. Wade a "lousy opinion"

The Hypocrisy of the abortion industry

A doctor tells us what goes on in an abortion. Shocking!!

So now abortion is safer than childbirth? Safer to whom?

It's not everyday that you read, really stupid things of such magnitude, that you are so appalled that you really wish you could talk to those who were personally involved in such a study as I am going to talk about today.

TIME has published a study that says that abortion is safer than child birth. Yes, you read that right. According to this new study, abortion supposed risks are none existence.

Abortion has a scary reputation, regardless of whether you’re for or against it. But the perception that it’s a high-risk procedure isn’t rooted in truth, according to new research. 

Although more than half of states counsel women on the risks of abortion, a study published online Monday in Obstetrics & Gynecology finds that a legal abortion is actually far safer than giving birth.

From the beginning, you can ask, "safer to whom? Not for the baby of course, who is killed. Does the baby in the womb count for something to this people? What if they were threatened when they were at the womb with death, would they still say the same about abortion being safe?

The research discovered that women are actually 14 times more likely to die during or after delivery than as a result of complications from abortion. “There’s a lot of stigma surrounding abortion,” says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state policies on reproductive health for the N.Y.-based Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice reproductive health research group. “This study is telling us it’s a lot safer than having a baby.”

There you go, a group that promotes abortion says that abortion  is safe, and even better than giving birth, is not surprising for them to reach such a conclusion. Well, if it is safer to abort than giving birth, then I think they hope for people to abort by hordes, and make them a lot of money along the way. What's a baby for them? Worthless as it seems, seems it doesn't matter if the baby dies during abortion, therefore, it's not safe for the baby.

Twenty-six states have intensive counseling for women who seek abortions. Some of the states distribute materials with questionable information, such as the risk of breast cancer after having an abortion or the negative impact on mental health. 

“The people developing these counseling materials are not really interested in talking about the facts,” says Nash, who wasn’t involved in the study. “They are interested in persuading a woman from getting an abortion in the first place.” 

That said, most of the counseling materials also includes information about the risks of pregnancy, although it can get overshadowed by the emphasis on the dangers of abortion.

Well, I don't know about cancer, but sounds about right. But a woman who performs a lot of abortions, may damage their womb so much, that they end up being unable to hold onto an embryo, therefore, never being able to have a baby. 


The article goes on praising the new figures about abortion, and how better it is to abort than to give birth. I wonder, if everybody opts to abort, within a few years, these people would go broke, since there wouldn't be anybody to abort!!


It is a good thing, that at the end, and with few lines, the study was refuted. But I get the feeling that the article wanted to promote abortion, rather than to report on the new study.

Anti-abortion groups took issue with the study, complaining, as did Paul Wilson of the Culture and Media Institute in a post on LifeNews.com titled “Reuters Pushes Biased Study Claiming Abortion Safer Than Birth,” that the researchers “were either abortion doctors or had strong ties to the abortion industry.” 

Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research and public policy at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told HealthDay News that she doubted the study’s findings and called them “speculation.”

If the authors of the "study" have strong ties to the abortion industry (yes, it is an industry, they make millions out of killing innocent kids), then such a study is suspect to the most!!


We will have to wait till another, more credible study appears, to see if really it's safer to abort than to give birth.


But then again, even if it would be clinically true, you know that by killing the baby, that position is totally wrong!!

Obama Administration just became American Christianity's worst enemy.

President Obama seems to be very desperate, since he is leaning towards the liberal camp in order to get more votes.

Obama Admin. Gives Church-Affiliated Institutions 1 Year to Comply to Birth Control Coverage Rule - Urban Christian News

3,000 babies die a day, not from hunger, not from neglect, but from abortion.

"Abortion is as American as Apple pie"-The Culture of Death Finds a Voice.

By Albert Mohler.

Abortion is now America’s most common surgical procedure performed on adults. As many as one out of three women will have at least one abortion. In some American neighborhoods, the number of abortions far exceeds the number of live births.

Most Americans will pay little attention to the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to arrange the killing of the unborn life within her. Since that decision was handed down, more than 50 million babies have been aborted, at a rate of over 3,000 each day.

One of the most chilling aspects of all this is the sense of normalcy in American life. Abortion statistics pile up from year to year, and each report gets filed. Moral sentiment on the issue of abortion has shifted discernibly in recent years, as ultrasound images and other technologies deliver unquestionable proof that the unborn child is just that — a child. Nevertheless, the larger picture of abortion in America is basically unchanged.

A middle position would require pro-lifers to accept that the deaths of some unborn children are acceptable, and abortion rights activists to accept that some decisions for abortion are wrong. Given the logic of their positions, there is no means of compromise.With predictable regularity, cultural authorities call for the emergence of a moderating position between the pro-life and pro-abortion positions. But efforts to achieve a stable compromise on the abortion issue are doomed to failure. The two positions hold irreconcilable views of reality. The pro-life movement holds that the central issue is the unborn child’s right to live. Abortion activists have staked their entire case on the claim that the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose.

In recent years, some on the pro-choice side of the controversy have called for abortion proponents to use language indicating that abortion is a painful and wrenching, but sometimes necessary procedure, and to accept that some reasons for abortion are just not sufficient. Nevertheless, this is received as a call for treason within the abortion rights movement, and these voices are regularly sidelined.

At the same time, there has been an effort to protect abortion with euphemism and evasion. Abortion rights activists speak of being pro-choice, not pro-abortion. The unborn child is reduced to a fetus, or a bundle of cells. Abortion clinics are described as women’s health centers.

There are some abortion activists who will not join that bandwagon. With chilling candor, they defend abortion as abortion, they defend the decision to abort as a morally superior decision, and they lament the evasiveness of their colleagues in the abortion rights movement.

Just recently, Merle Hoffman, a major voice in the abortion rights movement and founder of Choices, a major center for abortions in New York City, has written a memoir,Intimate Wars. In telling her story, Hoffman calls for her colleagues in the abortion industrial complex to defend abortion as a moral choice.

Abortion is the ultimate act of empowering women, she argues. “The act of abortion positions women at their most powerful, and that is why is is so strongly opposed by many in society,” she asserts.

A central portion of her memoir deals with the abortion rights movement’s attempt to defend abortion in the face of pro-life arguments that the fetus has a right to life.

“The pro-choice movement had to find a way to navigate these narratives,” she explains. “The simplest option was to negate the claims of the opposition. And so many pro-choice advocates claimed that the fetus was not alive, and that abortion was not the act of terminating it. They chose to de-personalize the fetus, to see it as amorphous residue, to say that it was only ‘blood and tissue.’”

As she explains, the pro-life movement thought that, if women really knew what abortion was — the killing of an unborn human being — they would decide to keep their babies. She rejects the argument.

Hoffman argues that woman do know what an abortion is. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that it is not “just like an appendectomy.” Her conclusion is that women know that abortion is “the termination of potential life.”

She then makes this statement:

“They knew it, but my patients who made the choice to have an abortion also knew they were making the right one, a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart. Sometimes they felt a great sense of loss of possibility. In the majority of cases, they felt a great sense of relief and the power that comes from taking responsibility for one’s own life.”

Rarely do we see abortion defended in such unvarnished terms — “a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.” Merle Hoffman goes on to explain how she can speak of abortion so directly. She has, she tells us, no conception that life is sacred.

“Abortion is as American as apple pie.” Hoffman made that statement in a recent interview about her book. She laments that abortion is the cause of shame in some women and that shame attaches itself to abortion in the large culture, even now. In her view, if women would start talking more honestly and directly about their abortions, the shame would be removed and women would discuss their abortions like they speak of “a bikini wax.”

Is Merle Hoffman right? Is abortion “as American as apple pie?” To our great shame, she has a right to make that claim. How can it be refuted when abortion on demand has been legal in this country for almost forty years, when one out of three American women will have an abortion, when within some communities far more babies die by abortion than are born?

In Merle Hoffman the Culture of Death has found a new voice. Almost forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion remains a central part of the nation’s moral landscape. Over 50 million unborn children have been aborted within the span of just one generation.

A titanic clash of absolutes is taking place in full view, and this clash indicates just how much work remains to be done in the great effort to protect the dignity of every single human life. As those who contend for the sanctity and dignity of each human life try to reach the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, others are at work as well. If they have they way, Americans will one day openly speak of abortion as nothing more shameful than a bikini wax.

Are you ok with the Holocaust? If not, why are you ok with abortion?

I know it's a bit too long, but i's worth looking at.

N. T. Wright on the Death Penalty

I've heard an interview in Issues Etc. Tim Goeglein, author of the book, “The Man in the Middle: An Inside Account of Faith and Politics in the George W. Bush Era”.

From the interview, I gather that the man wants to sell his book, which is ok. But while listening to him, I kept asking myself, how can he say he has been the most pro-life president if he started two wars, approved of rendition kidnappings, bombed thousands upon thousands of civilians in Afghanistan while searching for Osama Bin Laden, and left more dead in Irak than when Saddam Hussein was there. Either he was a very stupid person, along with his other White House staffers, who believed Malaki and all the others Iraki opposition members, or his god doesn't guide him, period.

I don't think Bush he was a pro-life president. How inconsistent, you defend life before you get out of womb, while you don't have any qualms with killing innocent people just to get one man. And like I said before, not killing 1 or 5 personas, but thousands. Americans have to go out of their national news to find out what really is happening, since the news networks, not only FOX, are so patriotic as to be objective in their news coverage.

But regarding the death penalty. I guess N. T. Wright is not well liked, because he tells it like it is. Americans have shown that they don't like to be lectured by anybody, even when they are totally wrong. The issue becomes worst when you see that even American Christians don't like to be told another view that does not go along with their view of American exceptionalism, which means that Americans along have the right to say what's good and right for the rest of humanity, due to their closeness to God. Although the USA is a very religious country, that doesn't make it faithfully christian. But when Americans hear such a thing, from an outsider like me, or an insider, they totally lose control, and tagged such people as "haters", and say that everybody else is just jealous of them. Well, I live in a country that has been voted as #1 so many times, that when they tell me that, it sounds totally senseless.

Here it's a short entry by N.T. Wright regarding the death penalty in the USA, and how people see that from the outside.

American Christians and the death penalty

You can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty. Almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to the death penalty, even though it was of course standard practice across the ancient world. As far as they were concerned, their stance went along with the traditional ancient Jewish and Christian belief in life as a gift from God, which is why (for instance) they refused to follow the ubiquitous pagan practice of ‘exposing’ baby girls (i.e. leaving them out for the wolves or for slave-traders to pick up).

Mind you, there is in my view just as illogical a position on the part of those who solidly oppose the death penalty but are very keen on the ‘right’ of a woman (or couple) to kill their conceived but not yet born child...

From where many of us in the UK sit, American politics is hopelessly polarized. All kinds of issues get bundled up into two great heaps. The rest of the world, today and across the centuries, simply doesn’t see things in this horribly oversimplified way...

While we’re about it, how many folk out there were deeply moved both by the reading of the 9/11 victim names and by the thought that if they’d read the names of Iraqi civilians killed by your country and mine over the last ten years we’d have been there for several days?

N.T. WRIGHT | SEP 15, 2011 10:29 AM

Luis A. Jovel

Abortion Statistics

Plant Rights, Screaming Vegetation, and a "Biocentric" Worldview

Several years ago now, I was appearing on a national network interview program and found myself discussing capital punishment with a woman who, during a commercial break, indicated that she had recently seen a combine going through a wheat field. She was horrified. The wheat was being cut down by thousands of stalks a second. She felt grief for the wheat, she revealed.

No one person on the panel knew what to do with that off-hand statement. I think it is safe to say that none of us had ever grieved over the intentional harvesting of vegetation.

Now, ethicist Wesley J. Smith indicates that an ethics panel in Switzerland has decided that "the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong." Writing in the current edition of The Weekly Standard, Smith explains that the idea of "plant rights" is now a matter of serious consideration among the Swiss.

The background to the current panel is a constitutional clause adopted years ago in Switzerland that demands Swiss citizens to recognize "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." Until just recently, no one seems to have expected that this would lead to a plants rights movement.

As Smith explains, the Swiss panel came up with a radical conclusion based in a radical worldview:

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

Smith rightly points to this kind of logic as "a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns."

The very idea of "plants rights" indicates a loss of cultural sanity. Until now, this cultural confusion has been most evident in the animal rights movement -- a movement that presents some legitimate ethical concerns but pushes its ideology beyond sanity. The failure to distinguish between human beings and the larger animal world is a hallmark of a post-Christian culture. The extension of this ideology to vegetation is a frightening sign of mass delusion.

Wesley Smith gets it just right:

Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.

So, now Swiss ethicists are working up protocols on "plant dignity" and determining scenarios that might qualify as a violation of "plant rights." The Swiss panel's report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is a wake-up call. The adoption of a "biocentric" worldview is a leap into irrationality. Good arguments can be made for responsible agricultural practices that honor God by demonstrating care for creation. But the ideology of "plant rights" and the suggestion of something like an inherent "right to life" for vegetation is beyond all reason.

The most tragic dimension of all this is that a culture increasingly ready to euthanize the old, infanticize the young, and adamant about a "right" to abort unborn human beings, will now contend for the inherent dignity of plants. Can any culture recover from this?

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1143

Just days after reporting that 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are now aborted, Amy Harmon reports in The New York Times that the real reach of the question goes far beyond Down syndrome. Now, some babies are aborted for virtually any trait considered undesirable by the mother or parents -- and ethicists seem unwilling to draw any clear lines.

As Harmon reports:

Abortion rights supporters -- who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body -- have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable. And many are finding that, while they support a woman's right to have an abortion if she does not want to have a baby, they are less comfortable when abortion is used by women who don't want to have a particular baby.

"How much choice do you really want to give?" asked Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "That's the challenge of prenatal testing to pro-choicers."

We knew this was coming, and the expanding availability of genetic testing will make the situation ever more complex and the options even more ominous. What about those who would abort a baby of the wrong sex . . . or eye color . . . or likely intelligence?

Here is a frightening section of the paper's report:

But Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line -- even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. "We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn't quite bring ourselves to say, 'Here's the line, firm and clear' because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy," she said. "You can never make that decision for someone else."

There is a brutal honesty in Kirsten Moore's candid admission that her inability to rule out any reason for an abortion is inherent in her pro-choice philosophy.

That same point is made by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She provided the paper with a statement that included these lines:

"This issue underscores the importance of families making personal, private decisions without political interference . . . The decision should be with women, their families, and their doctors."

As Amy Harmon reports, there are a good many people who consider themselves pro-choice who cannot go along with this logic. Ann Althouse, a law professor who considers herself a supporter of abortion rights, asked the key question: "Shouldn't they have moral standards about what reasons are acceptable for an abortion?"

The answer coming from groups like NARAL is a simple "no." And they apparently mean it.

Professor Althouse should talk to Dan Neil, whose argument for unrestricted abortion rights sends chills down the spine.

Neil's column, "The Abortion Debate Brought Home," was published in the May 6, 2007 edition of The Los Angeles Times.

Here is how he begins:

My wife and I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor's office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses -- two girls and two boys -- and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we're lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian.

Rosalind is my mother's name.We didn't want to. We didn't mean to. We didn't do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife's suffering belly.

Neil and his wife aborted two boy fetuses in order to increase the chances for two healthy girls. All of this resulted from an IVF procedure and the option of "selective reduction" that is urged upon parents by many doctors.

As Neil explains, "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad, because terminating these fetuses -- at 15 weeks' gestation -- was a medical imperative."

That is a redefinition of "imperative," and the claim completely side-steps the moral responsibility of using a technology that is almost certain to present this awful choice.

Furthermore, Neil and his wife used advanced diagnostic testing to determine which fetuses to abort.

Added to all this, Tom Strode of Baptist Press reports that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Britain has allowed human embryos to be tested for eye squint. As Strode explains, "The news marked an ominous milestone -– supposedly the first embryo screening for a cosmetic flaw."

More:

The director of the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre, which gained the license from the HFEA, told BBC News it was more than a cosmetic condition.

"Whereas we all know somebody who's got a squint, in this particular condition the muscles that control the gaze of direction of the eyes [are] grossly abnormal, so the gaze of the eye might be 90 degrees different from the direction which one might be looking, so to speak, the direction of one's face," Gedis Grudzinskas said.

Grudzinskas is not opposed to using PGD for cosmetic reasons, however.

"We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic conditions," he said, according to The Telegraph, a British online newspaper.

The clinic director said he would be willing to try for permission to test for any genetic factor that would produce severe distress in a family.

When asked about hair color, Grudzinskas said, "If there is a cosmetic aspect to an individual case I would assess it on its merits. [Hair color] can be a cause of bullying which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it.

There is no honest way to deny the slippery slope toward the wholesale denial of human dignity. We are frighteningly far down that slope already.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=943