Ask your politician

MAYBE YOU CAN USE THIS TODAY!

I ran across a writing by a man named Tyson Zahner. I don’t know him. However, he developed some questions to in order to “tell when a politician is using Scripture faithfully vs. using Jesus to sell you something.” I think the questions are useful. Some of this idea developed out of his hearing Texas candidate James Talarico on the Joe Rogan podcast turning “the incarnation of Christ into a campaign ad for abortion.” (If you have the stomach for it, you can listen to Talarico on Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube. He claimed Mary “gave consent” to God at the Annunciation and that becomes a model for bodily autonomy; i.e. choosing abortion. He also said Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality.) Though this started with Talarico, you can apply the questions to any politician on any side of the aisle (and those straddling the middle). I share Zahner’s questions in my own words (I can understand and hopefully present them better than way) because I think they can be helpful to Christians trying to cut through the noise. Don’t just run with one question alone; all five together will help a pretty clear picture to emerge out of the fog.

1. Is this position consistent with what the Christians have generally held for centuries, or has it just conveniently appeared more recently?

2. Does the position take into account the full counsel of Scripture, or just cherry-pick a verse or two while ignoring the context in which it sits (and the broader context of the whole of inspired Scripture)?

3. Is Scripture used to arrive at a conclusion, or twisted to fit a conclusion already held?

4. Does the argument hold up when applied consistently? For example, someone says, “Jesus never mentioned abortion” as if that settles the issue. So then will he apply that principle and say, “Jesus never mentioned sex trafficking” – and that makes sex trafficking okay. (I think it is easy to see the supposed logic crumbles under its own weight.)

5. Does the presenter of the position invite honest debate, or rather merely throw up Jesus as a shield to shut down disagreement?

Apply those to James Talarico and the answers indicate he is biblically wrong on abortion and homosexuality. Apply those to the positions of John Cornyn, Ken Paxton, Wesley Hunt, and Jasmine Crockett to see what you get. Apply those to Paula White, the President’s leader of the White House Faith Office. Apply them to any and all claiming the Bible approves their brand of politics. Apply them to you and me. Tyson Zahner has created and asked some helpful questions that work across the board.

And...

Just to be clear on Talarico, he is a very liberal Christian who does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions I have heard him present are biblical nonsense.

May God help us

Having recently heard a Texas preacher and politician cite the story of Mary and her choice as support for abortion (yes, you read that right), I refer you back to my past post, Politically-Correct-“Christmas”.

Short version. God did not ask Mary, “Would you like to do this?” Through his angel God told Mary the future he had chosen for her and she submitted (“be it unto me according to thy word”). 

Pro-Life Reply: When Does Life Begin

The Pro-Life Reply to: “No One Knows When Life Begins”

In this video, Dr. Tara Sander Lee, a molecular geneticist and Director of Life Sciences for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, delivers a scientific response to this common argument and dives into the developmental stages of the preborn child.

Have a listen. This lesson is under 5 minutes. In it, the speaker makes these points:

• Not knowing when life begins should be an argument AGAINST abortion
• The developing baby grows at an extremely rapid pace, especially in the first trimester
• At 22 weeks, it is possible for babies to be born and survive outside the womb
• In the womb, babies exhibit behaviors we do as adults
• Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus are all terms that merely refer to age
• Preborn babies are not parasites; if they were, the mother’s immune system would attack it
• It is a scientific certainty that human life begins at the moment of fertilization

Pro-Life Reply: My Body, My Choice

The Pro-Life Reply to: “My Body, My Choice”

In this video, Kirsten Watson, mother of 7, including twins, explains how to respond to “My Body, My Choice” and reinforce the pro-life argument for the most vulnerable members of society. Be informed and better prepared in less than 5 minutes. Some of the points she makes are:

• When a woman is pregnant, there is more than one body involved
• A right isn’t a right if I only apply it to me
• A woman’s right over her own body does not give her the right to end the life of any other human being
• Mothers and fathers have a natural and legal obligation to support their children after birth, so it should follow that they have this obligation before birth
• “My body, my choice” encourages men to use women, not respect them

Pitbull Pidcock

Rick Pidcock, a freelance writer and graduate of Bob Jones University, at times seems trying to establish himself at the pitbull of the left of liberal Not-Baptist Opinion Everywhere (aka Baptist News Global. He is a prolific contributor to BNG, but, like Martha, he is careful and troubled about many things – especially if those things have anything to do with “white evangelical conservatives.” It is almost like he has an insecurity rooted in fear.

Like many on the left, he fears the possibility of no longer being able to kill babies in the womb. He and they are enamored with that “right.”

The primary case against abortion is theological, not political. When conservatives declare that “life begins at conception,” that is a theological claim based on Psalm 139:13, not a scientific claim or a public policy claim.[i]

No great surprise for people who claim the Bible as their authority. And while biblical claims do not find their genesis in science, they do not necessarily contradict one another. And even if Pidcock can’t see it, “science,” which parses its words carefully in the current “politically-charged” atmosphere, is near the same place as Christians. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute admits, “Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus.” And Encyclopedia Brittanica states, “The zygote (fertilized egg cell)...represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism.”

Logic, common sense, and the American College of Pediatricians are slightly ahead of them, and right there with the Bible and Christians. There is one point in which something changes from two to one. “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.”

Rick cannot take it. In another diatribe, he makes clear his holier-than-thou position: If you want to discuss abortion with him, you must lay aside what you believe and discuss it on his terms. What hubris!

Drop that concept [belief in hell], and then maybe we can talk about abortion with a modicum of humanity and common sense. Until then, I can’t take anything conservative evangelicals in the pro-life movement have to say about abortion the least bit seriously.

See how the “liberal-minded” left operates? Acquiesce to my position before we can even begin to discuss an issue. Oh, the intolerance of tolerance!

---

[i] Note two things about “a theological claim based on Psalm 139:13, not a scientific claim or a public policy claim.” 1. “As if” that is the only theological prop we have. 2. He seems to disallow Christians using their source of truth in “public policy.” Get your truth elsewhere if you wish to unveil it in the public square. This from the folks who talk talk talk about “religious freedom.”

Peevish reactions to Dobbs v. Jackson WHO

Some guy named Billie Joe Armstrong is apparently an important rock star. (You couldn’t prove it by me.) While in London, he told concertgoers that he will protest the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision by renouncing his United States citizenship and moving to England. Good for him. Pray for England.

Another rock/pop star had plenty of cuss words for America (as did Billie Joe Armstrong). Pink told her fans who agree with the Supreme Court decision re Roe v. Wade to “never (cuss word deleted) listen to my music again.” Thanks, I will take you up on that, although the again part won’t be a problem for me! Perhaps she assumes a lot in thinking that pro-life folks actually listen to her music. She assumes more in thinking she gets to control who listens to her music.

We probably should praise these peevish reactions because (1) they are angry but not violent, and (2) they expose the underlying unthinking hypocrisy of many abortion proponents. The article I read says Armstrong is a native of California. Rather than controlling what Americans think, the Supreme Court decision pushes abortion laws back to the states. Armstrong’s state will have abortion freely available. Pink does not want the Court controlling her views and actions – yet she wants to control who can and cannot listen to her music! Pot meet kettle.

C’est la vie.

Sad Anniversary post removed

Sometimes I prepare posts ahead of time for a specific upcoming anniversaries, dates, events, and/or holidays. Today I removed a “Sad Anniversary” post I had scheduled for the 50th anniversary of the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court Decision. Six months before its fiftieth birthday, the Supreme Court aborted it with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

The vote was 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. However, though Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with that opinion, he held that the court should not have overturned Roe. The other three liberal justices opposed.

Biblically

• The Bible condemns murder – the taking of human life without justification.
• The Bible affirms the humanity of unborn children.
• Since the Bible establishes the humanity of the unborn child, then abortion is murder and cannot be morally permissible.

Legally

• The U. S. Constitution does not affirm abortion as a right.
• Murder should be regulated at the State rather than Federal level.
• The choice being made in abortion is the choice to take an innocent human life.

Hogs and Dogs

2 Peter 2:22

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, by now you have heard of the leaked Supreme Court draft. Politico (a political “journalism” company) leaked it to the public on Monday. Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the leak is of a legitimate draft, and said, “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.” I have a few thoughts. Roberts has directed the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court to investigate the leak.

The leaked document is a draft – unfinished business – despite Politico leading the article with Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights. This may indicate the outcome of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but it is not final or official. It’s not over till it’s over.

This is an unprecedented breath of trust.

Politico should be excoriated for their hypocrisy. They try to provide cover regarding one worldview and try to expose things regarding another worldview. They are not journalists, but political hacks working to promote their own worldview and their associated political outcomes.

Politico and its authors Josh Gerstein & Alexander Ward ought to be ashamed of their lack of integrity (they will not be). The only reason to leak a draft document seems to be to work up enough opposition to frighten the Court into changing their opinion. Courts must provide judgement on the merits of the law, not public opinion.

All the Congress in Washington, D.C., if they have an ounce of integrity, ought to denounce this breach of the America’s trust, regardless of their personal and political opinions about abortion. Many have shown the opposite tact, that they will not let a good “crisis” go to waste.

The Far Left are howling like a hit dog, squealing like a stuck hog, as if this is the end of the world. If the opinion in the draft comes to fruition, it actually only means that the question of abortion goes back where it belongs – to the states. Constitutionally, in the United States, individual states define and dispose of criminal matters such as murder.

Constitutionality aside, killing an innocent life is biblically and morally wrong.

[Note: Josh Gerstein acknowledges that he knows what he is doing to cause controversy, stating, “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.”]

Abortions, Vaccines, and Transgenderism

LifeSiteNews is a site that I find beneficial for news about and promotion of the Pro-Life stance. I appreciate their work. However, two articles I recently read there I found troubling – and wonder just how and why they passed muster. Both are by the same author, Nick Bell.[i] I do not know the author, but question the worth of these articles in the promotion of the cause of God and truth.[ii]

First, there is “Until Republicans point to dangers of COVID shot, their opposition to mandates rings hollow.”[iii] This rather curious article suggests we should not oppose mandates that might be good for us. It makes an ill-advised comparison between “mandating” against abortion, which is murder, and mandating for a vaccine that has both benefits and risks.

“If the COVID-19 vaccine is effective enough that you dedicate an entire ad to asking people to take it, why not mandate it? Most Republicans support a mandate that prohibits killing a child in the womb. Why not support this mandate that save lives too?”

Bell’s comparison is apples and oranges. The first is opposing the murder of human life. The second is mandating a form of health care. We should not support mandating things just because those things might be good for us. Bell implies that mandating the Covid vaccine would be fine if it were good for us, and the reason to not mandate is that it is dangerous. I agree that the Covid-19 has dangerous knowns. I further assert that it is full of unknowns. However, I do not have to know that it is, or even might be, dangerous to be against government entities mandating the Covid vaccination. A better comparison would be between Covid vaccination and our brushing our teeth. It does not matter whether brushing our teeth is good or bad; it is outside the government’s purview to start mandating that everyone must brush their teeth three times a day because it is beneficial.

Bell’s article does well to point out the dangers of the Covid vaccination. The invalid comparison to abortion as a similar “mandate” actually diminishes the strength of the case against abortion. Abortion is not just a health issue – it is a murder issue, the immoral snuffing out of a life created in the image of God.

Second, there is “Matt Walsh’s debate with transgender activists on Dr. Phil show left a lot to be desired.” I cannot speak for Matt Walsh, but when I stand for a cause, I always look back and see where I could have done better (i.e., “left a lot to be desired”). I do not mind constructive criticism in such cases. Nevertheless, rather than applaud Matt Walsh for taking on the enemy in the marketplace of ideas, Nick Bell sits on the sidelines and nitpicks.[iv] And weirdly so. I find it shocking that in the midst of criticizing Walsh, Bell defends the transgendered guests on Dr. Phil as “likable people” and “well-meaning people.” That they have struggles is certain. That they need prayers and even pity is true. However, we should not defend those promoting this ungodly agenda as “well-meaning.” Bell further suggests that we should acquiesce to their personal delusion by “simply using their preferred pronoun.”

“Conservatives can only win this debate in American society by forthrightly responding. This requires making the case that transgenderism inflicts unacceptable damage not only on those who dissent from it but also on the transgenders themselves, as well as children caught up in a ‘social contagion.’”

Why does transgenderism inflict “unacceptable damage?” Bell appears to have gone over to the philosophical side – it is wrong because it does damage. It does damage. It does damage because it is wrong. It does damage because it inflicts disorder to the order of God’s creation.

Ultimately, Bell’s conclusion misses the mark. “The argument for truth and honesty in sex and gender is dramatically more powerful when the true stakes of the issue – the happiness and wholeness of real, vulnerable people – are at the forefront.” The “true stakes” of the issue is that God made man in his likeness – and “male and female created he them.” If that biblical truth is not the foundation of the truth of two genders, then the entire case fails. There we must drive down our stake. There we must begin.

I am neither prophet nor fortuneteller. I do not know how these things will end in our society. I do know that God, the Bible, and science are all on our side in the abortion debate and the gender debate. Taking the eternal perspective, that is a winning combination.

---

[i] There is a Nick Bell who is an author at The Federalist. This Nick Bell formerly as served deputy director at the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives at the Department of Education, and was a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, VA-39 (did not win). I am uncertain whether this is the same person, but it seems probable (another article on LifeSite indicates their Nick Bell lives in Fairfax County, which is in District 39).
[ii] In addition, Nick Bell got some of the basic facts wrong, including how he identified the two transgender guests and what one of them said about the bathroom issue.
[iii] To be clear, I favor not only Republicans, but also public servants in general, doctors, nurses, and anyone with the platform to do so, to point out the dangers of Covid-19 vaccinations.
[iv] Complain if you will, but Matt Walsh went alone into the enemy camp, faced them down 3-against-1, and stood for the biblical and biological truth that there are only two genders. Further, Walsh seems to have made the arguments that Bell says he did not make. This is not a personal defense of Walsh, of whom I know little.

The slogan “Love your neighbor and get the shot”

“Love your neighbor, get the shot!”[i] Not a few times did we hear some form of the “love your neighbor” argument in reference to getting the Covid-19 vaccine? There is a reason.

Some of us living on the fringes are not very aware of the inner workings, smoke-filled rooms, and back room deals of faith and politics. At least not until someone in the media worth his or her salt makes the effort to expose the corruption. Most of this “love your neighbor” mantra can be traced back to Dr. Francis Sellers Collins, at the same time founder and Senior Fellow of BioLogos as well as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). (He retired from NIH at the end of 2021.)[ii] He played the “Christian card” and succeeded selling his potion to evangelical Christian leaders, who in turn sold it to pastors, who in turn sold it to churches and Christian individuals. This can be seen in perusing the Biologos website, and well as listening to Ed Stetzer’s podcast interview with Collins.[iii]

…the feds leveraged the high status the Evangelical scientist Francis Collins has with Evangelical influencers to sell the government’s Covid line to Evangelical churches. Basham begins by citing Wheaton College’s Ed Stetzer, a dean and executive director of its Billy Graham Center, giving a friendly interview to Collins early in the pandemic… (Rod Dreher)

Evangelical leaders are on Collins’ team, and “Collins’ team” rejects the Genesis account of creation, as well as intelligent design – favoring instead theistic evolution.

Ed Stetzer: “I’m on your team. But I’m having to answer these questions to people in my churches...But again, remember, I’m on Francis Collins’ team.”[iv]

Francis Collins: “Perhaps today’s conflict, which seems particularly intense, is so difficult to understand because, after all, evolution has been very much on the scene for 150 years, and the science that supports Darwin’s theory has gotten stronger and stronger over those decades. That evidence is particularly strong today given the ability to study DNA and to see the way in which it undergirds Darwin’s theory in a marvelously digital fashion...I would like to believe that in a few more decades, this battle will be seen as just as unnecessary and just as readily resolved in favor of saying that evolution is true and God is true.”[v]

Francis Collins is good at his craft and his craft favors the use of aborted fetal tissue.

Tim Keller: “As good as @NIHDirector is at his craft, he’s a better friend.”[vi]

Francis Collins: “...scientifically, highly justified. There is strong evidence that scientific benefits come from fetal tissue research, which can be done with an ethical framework.”[vii]

“In our current society, people are in a circumstance of being able to take advantage of those technologies [i.e., abortions]. And we have decided as a society that that choice needs to be defended.”[viii]

“One month earlier, Collins’s NIH had approved a research grant requested by University of Pittsburgh scientists who desired to graft the scalps of aborted fetuses onto rats and mice. Their research findings were published by Nature in September 2020 and include photos showing patches of soft, wispy baby hair growing amid coarse rodent fur. This, too, is the kind of man Francis Collins is.”[ix]

Francis Collins is a national treasure, and Collins treasures his alliance to advocate for LGBTQ issues.

David French: “Francis Collins is a national treasure.”[x]

Francis Collins: “Each June, the National Institutes of Health joins the rest of the country in celebrating Pride Month and recognizing the struggles, stories, and victories of those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and others under the sexual and gender minority (SGM) umbrella. I applaud the courage and resilience it takes for individuals to live openly and authentically, particularly considering the systemic challenges, discrimination, and even violence that those and other underrepresented groups face all too often...I am committed to listening, respecting, and supporting those individuals as an ally and advocate.”[xi]

Francis Collins is full of wisdom, expertise, and grace – and used his expertise to help cover up whether the Covid-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Russell Moore: “I admire greatly the wisdom, expertise, and, most of all, the Christian humility and grace of Francis Collins.”[xii]

Francis Collins: “Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive [Wuhan lab-leak] conspiracy.” (E-mail to Anthony Fauci)

[E-mails indicate that Francis Collins, Anthony Fauci, and others engaged to cover up the fact that the Covid-19 virus could have leaked from the Wuhan Lab (in which both were heavily invested).[xiii]]

Time would fail me to tell of Francis Collins and Purpose-Driven Rick Warren, Tim Dalrymple & Ted Olsen (Christianity Today), N. T. Wright (University of Oxford), and others.[xiv] I believe the record of American history – if the USA survives as a nation to tell this history – will show that Francis Collins and his team were on “the wrong side of history.” The wrong side of condemning Christians as conspiracy theorists and murderers who would not follow Jesus’s directive to “love your neighbor,” when they were not convinced about everything they were told concerning Covid-19. The wrong side of morality. The wrong side of Biblical belief and unbelief. His psychopants sycophants, being on his side, are on the wrong side as well. Unfortunately, such high-profile Christian leaders are like the proverbial Trojan Horse, or perhaps more likely, the enemy within. Is it any wonder American Christianity is in the shape it is in?

For there are certain men crept in unawares...

---

[i] Love Your Neighbor, Get the Shot! A Christian Statement on Science for Pandemic Times
[ii] His service spanned 12 years and three presidencies.
[iii] The Biologos statement, the signatories, and the Stetzer podcast.
[iv] Edward John Stetzer is, among other things, the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College and the Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.
[v] The ‘Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins.
[vi] Timothy Keller is a Christian theologian, author, and the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.
[vii] NIH chief defends use of human fetal tissue as opponents decry it before Congress.
[viii] The Tragedy of Francis Collins’s Model for Science-Faith Integration.
[ix] The Cautionary Tale of Francis Collins.
[x] David Austin French is a conservative Christian political commentator, former attorney, and senior editor of The Dispatch.
[xi] From the NIH Director: NIH 2021 Pride Month.
[xii] Russell D. Moore is a Christian theologian and preacher. He is the director of the Public Theology Project at Christianity Today, and former president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
[xiii] NIH letter appears to conflict with Fauci, Collins claims about Wuhan lab.
[xiv] Not coincidentally, the New York Times columnist David Brooks, who wrote the evangelintellgentsia promo “The Dissenters Trying To Save Evangelicalism From Itself,” is a member of Francis Collins’s book club.

Who is wrong in abortion debate?

Today’s post is an expansion of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper, Tallahassee, Florida. The letter is a response to “Both sides are wrong in abortion debate,” an opinion piece by retired psychologist Gary Whittenberger, published on December 6th. (If you cannot view it on their site, it is also available at Yahoo News.)

Dr. Whittenberger gets some things right and some things wrong. He rightly denounces the viability and privacy problems with the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability from that day and time (26 weeks) is now out the window. Lyla Stensrud was born in 2014 at 21 weeks.[i] Richard Hutchinson was born in 2020 at 21 weeks. Curtis Means of Alabama was recently certified as the “world’s most premature baby to survive,” his time of birth making his about 24 hours less than Richard’s time of birth. Whittenberger wisely knows that with advances in medical technology “viability will continue to go downward.” He further states, “nobody should have the right to hide an unethical or illegal act in private, and sometimes killing a fetus is like that.”

However, when he represents what is wrong on the pro-life side, he gets it wrong, writing:

The pro-lifers are wrong because they give an answer to the wrong question, i.e. “When does life begin?” That is totally irrelevant, and we already know that the zygote is alive. The relevant question is “When should the fetus be considered a person and assigned basic human rights?”

I suppose he does not intend to misrepresent the pro-life position. Nevertheless, in that statement he does so. Pro-lifers are not arguing that some unknown life form begins at the moment of conception – but that two humans create another human life, a person.  To pro-lifers “when does life begin” means “when does human life begin, including with it personhood and basic human rights.” Whittenberger is free to disagree with the pro-life position, but he should not misrepresent it, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are contending that at conception the life that begins at that time (which he admits is life) is a person, entitled to basic human rights, and that our laws should support and protect those rights.

Finally, Whittenberger disagrees with pro-lifers because he believes that a “human fetus cannot be a person until its brain matures to the point that it acquires the capacity for consciousness,” and that “this occurs at the end of the 24th week post-conception.” This agrees with a common scientific view that “the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.” (This disagrees with the living lives of Lyla Stensrud, Richard Hutchinson, Curtis Means, and others born before 24 weeks!)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, consciousness is “an organism’s awareness of something either internal or external to itself.” This view proves to be a dangerous concept for determining personhood, not only for the children less than 24 weeks, but also for adults in comas.[ii] Are they no longer persons and entitled to basic human rights? Sadly, this is where we have arrived and what many people think. Snuff them out unceremoniously. They have not consciousness. They are not persons.

Biblically, humans – all humans – have value because God made us in his image (Genesis 1:27, Job 33:4, Psalm 119:73).[iii] We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), in ways beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us, if we err, “err” on the side of life.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

---

[i] Or less, according to some unofficial reports.
[ii] It is also dangerous because this is unsettled science, subjective and subject to change. “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview.” – “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” (Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260, 2009). How much better to walk into the unknown, uncertain, and unsettled with the old medical adage, primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Where you are unsure, “err” on the side of life, not death.
[iii] Often expressed in the theological terminology imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”). 

The Stench of 1973

News outlets yesterday reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” [This in reference to “what if” the Court overturned abortion rights as they currently stand interpreted.]

I find that statement intriguing in light of how the abortion right was created. I wonder how she views the “reading” of the Constitution and the “political act” of the Supreme Court in 1973 when the majority found the right to abortion which they were unable to read in the Constitution.

John Rice on Abortion

After a male sperm cell has united with a female ovum and the body of the child thus conceived begins to develop in the womb of the wife, to destroy that little life and so prevent a normal birth of a child is called abortion, not birth control. And abortion is murder. Until recent years, very few people in the world, we believe, would have justified this destruction of an unborn child after conception has taken place. At least they would not have justified it under normal circumstances. Abortion, that is the willful murder of the little one where conception has already taken place and life has already begun, was, until recently, a crime prohibited by the law and condemned by all decent people.

John R. Rice in The Home: Courtship, Marriage, and Children

John Calvin on Abortion

Exodus 21:22. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart. from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine
Exodus 21:22. Quum autem rixati fuerint viri, et percusserint mulierem praegnantem ut egrediatur foetus ejus, nec tamen sequatur mors, puniendo punietur quemadmodum imposuerit ei maritus mulieris, et solvet apud judices.

22. If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. But, since it could not fail but that premature confinement would weaken both the mother and her offspring, the husband is allowed to demand before the judges a money-payment, at their discretion, in compensation for his loss; for although God’s command is only that the money should be paid before the judges, still He thus appoints them to settle the amount as arbitrators, if the husband should chance to be too exorbitant.

John Calvin in his commentary on Exodus 21:22

Get rid of the human weeds

...according to Sanger.

“Mrs. Sanger gave seven reasons for supporting birth control, including the dangers to the race of procreation by diseased or mentally imbalanced persons.”  The Vancouver Sun, July 24, 1923, p. 2

“If I understand anything of the practises and working of the various sects and the tactics of some of the leaders of the inferior races there is grave danger that control of offspring would mean simply that the women of the better kind would be the only ones to limit the number of their children.” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 29, 1925, p. 4A

“Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”  New York Times, April 1923

Quotes from Margaret Sanger, “mother” of abortion and Planned Parenthood in the U.S.A 

Freezing human embryos

A baby born from a 27-year-old frozen embryo has been big news recently. Molly Everette Gibson, born this past October from an embryo that was frozen in October of 1992, is just over 6 weeks old, yet only 18 months younger than her 29-year-old mother! The primary newsworthy item to the secular press is that Molly sets a record and makes history as the longest-frozen embryo to come to birth.

Dr. Jeffrey Keenan, President and Medical Director of the National Embryo Donation Center said, “I think this is proof positive that no embryo should ever be discarded, certainly not because it is ‘old!’ ... it’s a testament to how good God is, and to His infinite goodness and love.”

For some reason, this news item grabbed my attention in a way that such has not previously. I suppose I have never given this subject much deep thought. Assisted reproduction technologies have been around for decades, with great “success.” However, this success has created a surplus of frozen human embryos – around 1,000,000 in the United States alone, according to the National Embryo Donation Center.

If life begins at conception (as many of us believe), is it really moral and ethical to freeze live human beings?

The Ethics of Voting

Some interesting thoughts on politics from Jonathan Leeman, an elder at Cheverly Baptist Church, (currently meeting outdoors in Greenbelt, Maryland) and author of recently posted “The DC Mayor Doesn’t Get to Define Church.” The following is excerpted from “What Makes a Vote Moral or Immoral? The Ethics of Voting.”

“When you vote in a democratic system, you’re actually participating in the role of the “governing authorities” that Paul and Peter describe. Your job is to align your objectives with the purposes which God gives to the government in Scriptures, such as “punish[ing] those who do evil and praise[ing] those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13–14; see also, Gen. 9:5–6; Rom. 13:1–7; etc.).

“Therefore, your vote requires you to make a moral evaluation about what’s good and what’s evil, or wise and unwise (see Prov. 8:15–16), and then to act on behalf of your evaluation. You are morally responsible for this evaluation and act of judgment.

“Suppose then candidate Jack says he believes in positions a, b, c, d, and e, while candidate Jill supports issues l, m, n, o, and p. When I cast a ballot for Jack, I am giving Jack the agency—that is, the power or ability—he needs for turning a, b, c, d, and e into law over and against l, m, n, o, and p. If Jack is elected and succeeds in writing a, b, c, d, and e into law, I become morally culpable for those laws, at least in some measure, by the simple formula of cause and effect with my vote as the first cause. Our votes create the requisite agency. We’re handing Jack or Jill the sword of state…

“Suppose you believe issue e is wicked, yet vote for Jack because you really care about a, b, c, and d. Still, you cannot discount what your vote does. It gives Jack agency to pursue a, b, c, d, and e, and you remain morally responsible for that. There’s no way to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the one thing you don’t like and to keep it for the four things you do like.”

Pro-Life Neo-Evangelicals raise the White Flag

In the name of “pro-life,” a group of evangelicals has run up the white flag. On their home page they claim to support the sanctity of human life from beginning to end – but cut off the beginning in the race to the end.

As pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end…For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.

They assert, “Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.” Certainly none of this is unimportant, but surely the vacuity of thought resounds in the insertion of smoking as a problem comparable to abortion. The murdered baby will never have the opportunity to choose to smoke or reject it. The murdered baby will never know wealth or poverty, racism or the lack thereof, or whether climate change is all it is cracked up to be. Accessible health care? Instead, give the babe in the womb accessible death care!

Joe Biden on abortion, at the 2019 Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta, Georgia, said, “I support Roe. I support a woman’s right to choose under that Constitutional guaranteed provision.” At the New Hampshire Democratic Debate on February 7, 2020, David Muir asked Joe Biden, “Would there be a litmus test on abortion?” (That is, would he only appoint judges who support abortion, Roe v. Wade, etc.) Jo Biden answered, “Yes.” As a senator, Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would prevent states from enacting certain restrictions on access to abortion. While running for President, Harris promised that she would require that states would have to go through her Justice Department for approval of abortion-related laws. She also co-sponsored the EACH Woman Act, which would undo the Hyde Amendment, an amendment that bans federal funding of abortion. (Harris’s positions are directly aligned with the Democratic Party Platform, which states, “We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify Roe v. Wade.”)

Fellow Christian, your dislike of Trump resonates with me. Disliking Trump does not justify supporting Biden and the pro-death Democrats. Why not fight for better politics, a third party that stands for real Christian values? No, we won’t get there this year. Probably not four years from now either. We won’t ever get there as long as we keep settling for the choice of one of two very poor options!

Fact is, “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Abortion,” er, I mean Biden – if you do not support life in the beginning, you do not support it to the end, because in a Biden/Harris/DNC scenario the beginning is the end.

Notes: In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide. It is the leading cause of death in the United States as well (in latest counts, over 600,000 abortions annually per CDC, or 800,000 abortions annually per Guttmacher). Are “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies annually, because they prefer the other policies of the Democrats? Apparently so, even though other parties oppose (or at least do not promote) abortion while differing on the best ways to achieve some of the other issues. Republicans also want good health care for all Americans. You may not prefer the way they go about it, but they are not trying to kill us all. Libertarians favor a free market health care system, and are not promoting death. The current administration’s economic policies (at least before the pandemic) promoted prosperity and helped alleviate poverty. President Trump has repeatedly repudiated white supremacy while continually being smeared with it. He promoted and signed into law the First Step Act, reforming criminal justice laws that seem to affect blacks disproportionately. Further, he promoted and signed a bill providing secure funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. AND I am not aware of any political party that is promoting cigarette smoking! Ultimately, this so-called “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” movement is likely just another expression of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like COVID-19, it has many random symptoms.

Evangelicals’ Opposition to Abortion

The History of American Evangelicals’ Opposition to Abortion Is Long -- “To take pro-choice revisionists at their word, one would have to believe that, with Roe, the Supreme Court struck down restrictive abortion laws that came from nowhere and were passed by nobody but merely existed.”

The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child. [Didache 2:1–2 (a.d. 70)]
In the new historiography of the abortion debate, the reason that pro-lifers are against abortion is not that they sincerely believe it to be murder. Rather they are operating from a false consciousness, hiding their real motive, racism...To take pro-choice revisionists at their word, one would have to believe that, with Roe, the Supreme Court struck down restrictive abortion laws that came from nowhere and were passed by nobody but merely existed.

Southern Baptists for Abolishing Abortion

A group of Southern Baptists has started an organization called Southern Baptists for Abolishing Abortion. While pro-life is a common position among Southern Baptists, John Smith, pastor of Evergreen Baptist Church in Cashmere, Washington emphasized this difference, “All other resolutions [in the SBC, about abortion] have stopped short of calling abortion for what it is, the murder of our pre-born neighbors and the call for its immediate end.” 

Derin Stidd, pastor of Harmony Baptist Church in Frankfurt, Indiana told The Resurgent, “...instead of celebrating legislation which regulates when, where, and how a baby can be murdered, our resolution calls for Christ-honoring legislation which seeks to completely and totally criminalize abortion without exception or compromise. In this regard, our resolution is the only anti-abortion call-to-action that is actually consistent with our doctrinal statement.” 

 The resolution can be read HERE.