Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Click below to read the full Manhattan Declaration.

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Discrepancies within Stem Cell Approval

Apparently Obama has decided to sign ‘an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.’ While I read the article from CNN, I couldn’t help but notice a couple of inconsistencies in the ideals of the quoted supporters of such an action.

Barack Obama: "In this case, I believe the two [sound science and moral values] are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

[Comment] I assume we are just not responsible enough to have the humanity and conscience to exercise our faith in ensuring the unborn child also does not suffer and is cared for.


Nancy Reagan: "Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases."

[Comment] I assume we are to allow the death (or destruction, as some put it) or suffering of some children to benefit the children chosen to live, since apparently a cure for a disease is more important than the life of an unborn child.


Faith and responsibility….indeed…I would say America needs some.

Abortion: Thoughts From the Next Generation

Woe Unto Them That Call Evil Good

Well, those who oppose Biblical Truth to embrace the transgression thereof are at it again. It simply amazes me at the lengths some persons will go to in trying to justify their depravity. It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their iniquity.

Lisa Miller of Newsweek has apparently written an article entitled, ‘Our Mutual Joy’, stating, ‘Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.’

R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Baptist Press gives a lengthy, but worthy rebuttal entitled, ‘Newsweek turns Bible on its head.’

Mrs. Miller is not the first to attempt such, for there have been others such as Ray Boltz, Peggy Campolo, President Elect Obama, the writers/authors of For the Bible Tells Me So, and even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which have tried to justify the immorality of homosexuality by use of Scripture.

Yet, this misuse of Scripture to try and justify ones sin is not limited to just homosexuality, the same thing has been done regarding abortion also. It can also be found in ones desire to leave their family and turn their backs to their wedding vows even in the marriage of Christians.

Why must we as Christians or non try to corrupt the very Word of God to seemingly justify our degenerate minds and actions? This will in no way make us less guilty before the One True Holy God. Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.

Isaiah declared, ‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’

Teenagers Choose Fornication Over Purity

At first glance, the notion given by the article title Teenage Birth Rate Rises for First Time Since ’91 may appear to give credible voice to those which oppose abstinence-only classes, claiming this is proof as to their failure to work. It is obvious with the rate of teenagers giving birth being greater than zero that there are indeed those which are not practicing abstinence-only, but that in and of itself does not prove that the rise in teenage birth rates is due to the abstinence-only classes themselves nor that they are failing to work. In seeing the rise of teenagers giving birth, it must also mean (if blame is to be placed upon abstinence-only classes) the non abstinence-only classes are failing to persuade the teenagers also, for aren’t contraceptives 99% guaranteed against pregnancy?

This is why I have to agree with researcher Robert Rector. “Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, said that blaming abstinence-only programs was “stupid.” Mr. Rector said that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies.” Oh, you mean teenage birth rates are up because the teenagers want to have sex and want to have babies? Well, that makes sense. So, let’s blame those guys that don’t want our teenagers to have sex and have babies before they mature and marry – it’s a woman’s choice remember.

It also appears that it is not only our teenagers wanting to enjoy premarital sex (aka the sin of fornication), for “Unmarried childbearing reached a record high in 2006, according to the disease control centers, with unmarried mothers now accounting for 38.5 percent of all births. Births among teenagers and unmarried women tend to lead to poor outcomes for their children.” I guess abstinence-only classes are the reason unmarried women are having sex and getting pregnant also, huh?

So what was their answer to the “I will have sex with no contraceptive” will? “Helping to prevent these pregnancies was the reason advocates pushed for the wide availability of the morning-after pill known as Plan B.” So as a choice, if you don’t want them to be taught abstinence-only is the best way, and they will not adhere to you teaching them about contraceptives, you simple offer them the slaying of the child which develops at conception. This way they may feel they have been able to enjoy sin for a season without having to ever feel the repercussions of their actions to engage in fornication.

The rise in teenage birth rates is not the fault of abstinence-only classes, but the moral decline in our nation’s heart toward the sanctity of marriage, the purity of life, and a denial of sin and accountability to a Almighty Holy God.

Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

Over at my neighborhood atheist blog vjack posted a topic entitled: Christian Terrorism: Alive and Well.

The post is from an article, here, which speaks of a bomb found outside an abortion clinic in Austin. The bomb was found and disarmed and no one was hurt, but the claim from the blog is that this is Christian Terrorism because it was at an abortion (i.e. pro-choice) establishment.

A later posted article, here, by a commenter gives the name of the person and where they are from:

Paul Ross Evans, 27, of Austin is charged with three federal crimes that accuse him of using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to damage a building used in interstate commerce and attempting to damage a facility because it provides reproductive health services.

In 2003, Evans was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an aggravated robbery at a Lufkin Whataburger.

To me it looks like this guy has more issues than claiming to be a pro-life Christian being called to terrorize abortion clinics with the use of bombs.

My point is this: Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

What I mean by this is just because a person claims to be pro-life (meaning the life of the child be saved) and not pro-choice (meaning the choice of the mother take precedence over the life of the child) does that automatically mean that person is a Christian? I personally do not believe the two words to be synonymous. I believe a person can be pro-life without being a Christian, for there are people who claim to be Christian that are pro-choice.

Also, if one nut decides to place a bomb at a building, whether they claim pro-life or Christianity, should that be Christian Terrorism? I fail to see the logic in such name calling. Yes Christians (more than not) believe that abortion is wrong, but we do not find scriptural support to disobey the law and plant bombs to kill the doctors, women, and babies (which we claim pro-life) to die.

By this I believe Pro-Life does not equal Christianity, nor does an act of terrorism by an individual equal Christian Terrorism.

Conditional Pro-Life or Conditional Pro-Choice

We’ve got to stop straddling the fence on this issue of abortion if ever we want it to come to rest. The Pro-Lifer has got to decide whether or not they are Pro-Life or Conditional Pro-Life; which, by the way, also makes one Conditional Pro-Choice or more in fact Conditional Pro-Abortion. That may leave a bad taste in some of the mouths out there, but this is exactly what we have here.

Again I have run across another article, posted by Baptist Press News [article here], about South Dakota now trying to pass a Conditional Abortion Ban.

Apparently last year [2006] South Dakota voted to abort a bill that would ban all abortions with “an exception only to save the mother's life”. Coming in 2008, South Dakota will have the chance to decide whether abortion is right in the eyes of God in cases such as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.

You say, “We’re not deciding on whether it is okay in the eyes of God, but whether legally it is okay”. If you are a Christian and you believe that God and the Bible are against abortion – what exactly then are you saying if you vote YES [I AGREE] for a law that says abortion “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” is okay?

We’ve got to stop tap dancing around the issue and take a strict narrow-minded approach to the bottom line. The bottom line is not “When is abortion okay”, but “Is abortion okay”. When we move the line for this and that, we always run into problems.

I realize that the cry from Pro-Lifers might be “At least we can save some babies from being aborted”. I agree, that is important, that saving some would be better if we could not save them all. But could we save them all [legally] if we would contend for the faith in that we do believe every unborn baby at the moment of conception is indeed is a child with DNA?

Not to single out Republican state Rep. Gordon Howie, whom the article quotes saying, "The rights that we’re discussing are not ours to give. They’re given by our Creator. Those rights are ours to defend. We believe in bringing this bill we’re fulfilling a responsibility to defend those rights on behalf of those who are most innocent and the most vulnerable.", but with this bill only some rights are being defended here.

Can one really pride themselves when the rights of the unborn child of situations “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” are not being defended, but annulled in the very same bill which is goaled to give rights to some? Judge thyself.

When we try to create exceptions in the issue of abortion, we become hypocritical to ourselves, to those on both sides, and to God. If you believe, as scripture teaches, that human life begins at conception, then regardless of such cases as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” one is still murdering [taking the life of] an innocent human being.

Life begins at conception even in times of “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.

For more reading you can check out my topics: When is Abortion Murder and A Pro-Choice Lawyer Misquoting Scripture.

----------

Check out Mike's Ponderings...

A Pro-Choice Lawyer Misquoting Scripture

In response to a posting of the following by www.2theadvocate.com:

Letter: Retain abortion as legal choice [click to read article]
Published: Feb 15, 2007

Coming from someone in the line of work surrounded by dealing with the facts and context of situations, this is a most embarrassing example of talking outside of the boundary of ones own knowledge of an issue.

Anyone that takes just a few minutes to read Leviticus 27 can clearly see that abortion is neither the context nor even remotely related to anything in the chapter. The writer also fails to mention that the male is “worth” more than the female here and the poor person is mentioned as to a priest giving their worth.

On to the writer’s clearly misrepresented version of Numbers 3, we find that only “every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them”. Incase of argument here, the following list of the count all begin with “the sons” and one may read verse 22. Please read for yourself, the context has nothing to do with the idea or concept of abortion.

As one walks along to Deuteronomy 21, they are presented with a case of a male child that is not unborn, but is old enough to be “a glutton, and a drunkard” as it says in verse 20. This was not a case of abortion or of a child simply acting as most children do in moments of disobedience toward their father and mother. This also carries with it the idea of a lifestyle of “stubborn and rebellious”, not a single act; for who then would be here?

Again with the quote of Matthew 15 we see the writer’s unwillingness to associate statements with context. Is there evidence of an unborn child “that curseth father or mother” as the reference is in verse 4?

Blanket statements such as “’Pro-lifers’ focus on ‘clinical abortion,’ while many of them practice family planning that utilizes abortifactants such as hormonal birth-control pills, or the IUD (intrauterine device.)” sound every persuasive only to people that don’t care to look at the facts. There are many “Pro-lifers” that indeed will not use birth control.

It is almost hilarious, if it were not so sad, the steps this writer will take to twist the Word of God into a circus of misquoted garbage to try and prove that Christians are wrong at worst and merely hypocrites at best. Genesis 38:7-10 again has nothing to do with neither abortion nor birth control nor masturbation. Judah told his son Onan to go unto his brothers wife [for the LORD had slew his wicked brother Er] to rise up seed for his brother. The LORD slew Onan because he directly disobeyed his father in that “he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.” The LORD takes “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee” pretty seriously [Exodus 20:12].

The whole article would not stand up in a court of law and clearly shows the stretch as to what limits one might go to attack not only a person that doesn’t believe abortion is right but also the very Word of God.

It would have been better if the article only contained the writer’s last paragraph:

“If you are opposed to abortion, fine. Don’t have one. That is your choice. Birth control and abortion are also choices that should remain personal legal choices.”

This is where they truly stand; the rest was just a lack of discernment and misuse of the Word of God.

Timothy Waldrop
Un-aborted Male
Louisiana

CC: to http://www.2theadvocate.com/ editor 2/15/2007 around 10:00am.

----------

Check out how Bobby has lived a life of music.

When is Abortion Murder?

I have just finished reading an article [here] from the Baptist Press and can’t help but comment.

The article begins with “Mississippi's Senate easily passed a bill Feb. 7 banning most abortions”, so my very first question then is what does “most” mean? They tell me in the second paragraph, “abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life”.

There are many which would applaud this effort, as in the example of Tanya Britton, president of Pro-Life Mississippi. She says [as reported] “Mississippi needs to go on record about its position on abortion so that there is no question that people in the state, No. 1, are pro-life and No. 2, do object vehemently to the taking of the life of any child”.

What exactly is the message that is being sent? The message being sent is not “Mississippi is pro-life”, but “Mississippi is conditionally pro-life”. There is a difference. If one is pro-life then we must also include being pro-life to the children of “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” situations.

I am not clear as to how they can claim on one hand “The Mississippi bill says "every human being, including those in utero, possesses a natural intrinsic right to live and has an interest in life" and that the abortion procedure is "inherently dangerous to the psychological and physical health of the woman.”, then on the other hand not include all abortions. That is like saying, “every baby, well every baby but these”.

So when exactly does abortion become murder? Apparently when one wants it to.

If abortion is wrong for the non “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” then it is wrong for the “rape, incest and to save the mother's life” case. It is like the cases that we have if a mother wants to abort [murder] the baby she is carrying it is just a fetus and not a baby and she may do so, but if she wants the baby and the baby [while unborn] is killed by someone else they can be charged with killing it.

What if they [the killer] are a doctor too, can they whip out their license to practice?

To say that an unborn baby is not a baby, a human, a child is like saying the mentally handicap child that can do nothing, which must be fed, bathed, and cared for in everyway is not a human either. God help us! Guess this is why we don’t have a problem with aided suicide either. You better pray before you are sent to the hospital and have to be put on machines – they’ll just unplug you I guess because you want be human either.

Just do a quick search of your Bible [you can even use BibleGateway.com], and see if an unborn child is a person in God’s eyes.

A simple look at John the Baptist clearly removes any doubt of whether an unborn baby is considered a live and indeed a person yet before they are born.

Luke 1:15, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb
Luke 1:44, For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Of course it is no secret that when a lady goes in to get an ultra sound by the fifth week, that soft sound one hears is called a heart beat [info].

I have heard that some wish to believe that a baby [fetus] is not a baby [child] until it comes forth from the womb and breathes its first breath. They site Genesis 2:7, by noting that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The only problem is we don’t see God breathing life into Eve, and I only have two children but neither of them came out of the womb needing someone to breathe life into them. This would only occur from a medical problem like the umbilical chord being wrapped around their neck or something in the womb.

My point is this: Yes it is good to be able to limit all of the abortions we possibly can, but we shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back and believe we have done God a great service or have shown our light proudly before a lost and dying world when we tell them that abortion is murder UNLESS for “rape, incest and to save the mother's life”.

I am sorry if one has been rape. Being a man and not having someone close to me having had to go through that situation I can’t even imagine how it must be. But I can say that the little baby growing inside of that lady is indeed a person and it was not their [the baby] fault that it happened either.

The same goes for the one that is pregnant due to incest. It is sickening that a father, that should be there to love and teach their daughters the things of God, would selfishly and perversely defile their own child for the sake of their own lust.

Both cases in mind: The babies in their wombs are still alive, just as John the Baptist was. So for us to tell the one that made the choice to become pregnant, “You can not abort”, yet the one that has been forced pregnant, “You can abort” is both hypocritical and unscriptural. We can tell neither, “It is okay for you to abort the child within your womb.”

Our problem is that our emotions want to feel sorry for one [which we should] and angry at the other [which we should also remember grace], and we let it cloud our mind from biblical perspective [i.e. Biblical truth from the Word of God].

As for the last case, “to save the mother's life”, in my opinion can not be associated with the others. Why? Because this is not a choice of the mother as to whether the child is a baby or not, but is a choice to decide who lives. Still a choice and still has consequences. I do not know the amount of cases of this, but surely they are slim compared to the number of abortion clinic cases. If it were me, I would tell the doctors to do whatever it takes to save both. Yet scripture declares, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” [John 15:13] I’ll let you decide if you should take this to allow the baby to live over the mother or not. The point is to remember that the child is still a child and not just okay to abort for the sake of it not really being a child yet or due to selfish reasons on the part of the mother.

Surely, if read, this will cause controversy, but let it not be due to emotion and feeling – let your thoughts be grounded in the Word of God, our final authority.

The cry, “It is my body and I should be able to do with it what I want” isn’t going to cut it with God. And don’t think that woman [child] in the belly that is fixing to be suck out wouldn’t make the same claim.