Tag Archive: abortion

Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)

20 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!


“X”  here – Not a parent. Infuriated along with any decent parent with the socialist “it takes a village to raise a child” mentality; (usurping parental authority, socialist teachers and school systems, trying to tell you they’re going to decide how your child is raised) the abortion war, intrusion into every facet of our lives…  Then a woman’s bold decision to do what’s right, not what’s convenient:

washington-congress (1)

Washington Congresswoman Gives Birth to ‘Miracle Baby’  After Refusing Abortion

PORTLAND – A Republican congresswoman from Washington  has given birth to a ‘miracle baby’ after refusing abortion as an option when  told that the chances of the child’s survival were small.

Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler and her husband Daniel announced the  birth of the child, a girl, on her Facebook page on Monday.

“With great joy, gratitude and hope, we are pleased to share with you the  news of the birth of our daughter, Abigail Rose Beutler, on Monday, July 15 at  3:13 AM at Emanuel Legacy hospital in Portland. She weighed two pounds, twelve  ounces and was only 28 weeks along,” the announcement read. “She is every bit a  miracle.”

Earlier this year, Beutler, 34, was informed that Abigail had a fatal  condition known as Potter’s Syndrome. The baby’s lungs were not developing  properly due to a lack of amniotic fluid and would likely die, the doctors said.  Therefore, Beutler was given the option of either aborting Abigail or letting  the baby die on her own. But being pro-life and a Christian, Beutler knew that  there was really only one choice: to trust God.

“Multiple doctors explained that based on medical evidence her condition  was incompatible with life and that, if she survived to term, she would be  unable to breathe and live only moments after birth,” the family explained. “The  options we were offered were termination or ‘expectant management,’ that is,  waiting for her to die. Instead, we chose to pray earnestly for a  miracle.”


Read the rest at Christian News

This entry was posted in Email Featured, Faith, Family, Featured. Bookmark the permalink

Read more: http://savingourfuture.com/2013/08/washington-congresswoman-gives-birth-to-miracle-baby-after-refusing-abortion/#ixzz2b76oUDip

I used the link from Political Outcast to obtain this source material. They did a good cover story; however, the photo (and object of the commentary) was left out.  Their commentary included below Live Action News.

Live Action News


Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial”

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.

The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.

“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.

The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.

The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.

“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.

Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.

“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.

About Caleb Parke

        Caleb Parke is a recent graduate of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, born and raised on a small horse farm in Findlay, Ohio. He is a nerd for faith and freedom. You can follow him on twitter (@calebparke) and connect on Facebook.         View all posts by Caleb Parke →                                     


3 Major Newspapers Refuse Pro-Life Ad:  Baby Pictures  Are “Too Controversial”

A pro-life organization called Heroic Media created an ad raising awareness  of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would outlaw abortions  after 20 weeks. The ad featured a baby around 20 to 24 weeks being held  in a person’s hand. The caption beside the image read:  “This child has  no voice, which is why it needs yours.”

This group wanted to purchase ad space from certain newspapers, but three  major newspapers turned them down, because the image of the small child was “too  controversial.” It was the Chicago Tribune, LA Times and USA Today  that refused to run their ad.

So, Heroic Media changed the image to be of an unborn child in utero. The  Chicago Tribune decided that that was not “too controversial” as  long as the group indicated clearly that it was an advertisement. They agreed to  run the revised ad.

I don’t get what’s so “controversial” about a very small child. One of the  things Heroic Media wanted to get across was what life looked like at 20 weeks,  which is the legal threshold defined in the pro-life bill that passed the House  recently. They wanted to impress their viewers with how much of a baby a baby  really is at 20 weeks.

Probably the newspapers were worried about their readership. Readers might be  offended that they advertised for a pro-life group using a premature born baby  instead of an unborn one. Readers might accuse the newspapers of promoting an  advertisement that appeals to the emotions of others to support a pro-life  cause. Then, they might unsubscribe. And that means less money for the  newspaper.

Remember what happened to Matt Drudge in 1999? He wanted to use a picture of  an unborn child’s hand reaching through his mother’s uterus and holding on to  the doctor’s finger. The Fox network did not allow this, because they didn’t  want him using the picture to push a pro-life message. They argued that since  the photo wasn’t of an abortion, but of an unborn child being treated for spina  bifida, it had nothing to do with abortion and therefore, should not be used.  That’s when Drudge said the network was just trying to censor him, and he  left.

Of all the horrible and vulgar things that are allowed to be published in  newspapers and television shows, one of the few things that is just “too  controversial” to publish is a picture of a very young baby. Fox’s excuse was  that the photo wasn’t really related to abortion. Give me a break. Like they  really care about an image’s relevance to their topic. If it were any other  issue, they’d simply go for the most shocking picture. That’s what helps their  viewership. Same with newspapers. But if it’s a child, and the message is a  pro-life one, then all of sudden relevance becomes very important, and besides,  baby pictures are just “too controversial.”

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/3-major-newspapers-refuse-pro-life-ad-baby-pictures-are-too-controversial/#ixzz2YTc3fohA

Author’s note: This and many old posts updated 7-4-17.  Older Zionica posts for reasons unknown can’t be retrieved from the URL, including any image which used to be visible.

Infanticide is the new abortion. I’m not saying infanticide will be the new  abortion, but that it is. Wherever abortionists kill late-term babies—across the  fruited plain—inconvenient live births occur. And inconvenient live births are  taken care of. If your patient is shelling out a thousand bucks to end the life  of her baby, you are not about to send her home with a baby and a formula  starter kit.

Infanticide was the unseen presence throughout the Gosnell trial, formally  listed among the charges but never addressed until Judge Jeffrey Minehart sprung  an 11th hour surprise by spelling it out in his instructions to the jury. Till  then the two months of heated debate had seemed to be between murder and  innocence. When the judge finished his presentation, reporters rushed the  defense attorney for clarification. He tossed off a thumbnail sketch while  packing his suitcase: Murder involves killing; infanticide is withholding  help.

The judge had been more specific in his definition of infanticide: (1) the  defendant is a physician; (2) the physician attended the birth of a live child,  i.e., a “human being” who was “completely expelled from the mother” and  exhibiting signs of life; (3) the physician failed to provide that child care;  (4) the physician did so “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”

This took me back to the first week of April when a witness for the  prosecution described what she does at her hospital with aborted babies born alive: She administers “comfort care,” which turns out to be draping the baby  with a cloth “until it passes.” Why, that sounded positively Florence  Nightingale-like. Such wording does not conjure a struggle for life, or a  gasping for breath.
Read more: http://zionica.com/2013/06/18/beware-of-comfort-care/#ixzz2WfCFHLRn

Courtesy of Samiam60

Just say NO to Abortion


Con te partirò    (literally meaning “With you I will leave”)   LYRICS IN ENGLISH:

When I’m alone I dream on the horizon and words fail; yes, I know there is no light in a room where the sun is absent, if you are not with me.

At the windows show  everyone my heart which you set alight; enclose within  me the light you encountered on the street.

I’ll  go with you, to countries I  never saw and shared with  you now, yes, I shall experience them.

I’ll go with you on ships across seas which, I know no, no, exist no longer; with you I shall  experience them.

When you are far away I dream on the horizon and words fail, and, yes, I know that you are with me; you, my moon, are here with me, my sun, you are here with me.

I’ll  go with you to countries I  never saw and shared with  you, now, yes, I shall experience  them.

I’ll go with you on ships across seas which, I know, no, no, exist no longer; with you I shall  experience them again. I’ll go with  you on ships across the  seas which, I know, no, no, exist no longer; with you I shall experience them again.  I’ll go with you, I with you.

[  From:  http://www.metrolyrics.com/con-te-partiro-english-version-lyrics-andrea-bocelli.html  ]




Godfather Politics

posted on October 27, 2012 by Gary DeMar

The Christian Post site is publishing articles by Christians who are making a case for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

I can’t understand how a Christian can vote for someone who supports abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. “President Obama said Thursday [October 25,] that he is formally endorsing same-sex marriage in the states of Washington, Maine and Maryland, joining Minnesota, where he has already lent his support to the issue earlier this year.” There is no way a Christian can support President Obama, especially if the Bible is the standard.

Even so, there are some Christians who will vote for Obama. Here’s the rationale from Rod Snyder from Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia. He serves as president of the Young Democrats of America.

“For some people it might seem counterintuitive that I would end up as president of a progressive political organization like the Young Democrats of America. But the truth is that I support President Obama and Democratic policies because of my faith, not in spite of it.

“Scripture teaches us that, ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:40). When viewed through the lens of Christ’s own words, the contrast between the two candidates for president this year could not be clearer.”

Mitt Romney created more jobs through the private sector at no cost to you and me than Barack Obama did. President Obama took money from some Americans and gave to other Americans. Mr. Snyder, please find me a verse in the Bible that supports that.

The Bible has a great deal to say about helping the poor (as it does about abortion and homosexuality), but I can’t find a single verse where it empowers the State to tax the prosperous so it can be redistributed to the less fortunate. Mr. Snyder’s use of Matthew 25:40 is not a call for the State to develop a welfare system.

Tony Campolo, an advocate for the worldview adopted by Mr. Synder, declares “that there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed.”[1] What Campolo needs to find in these 2,000 verses is one verse that gives authority to civil government to redistribute wealth. Campolo takes verses that are directed at individuals and turns them on their head by giving them a political twist. Here’s a representative example:

Most important, when we reflect on all Jesus had to say about caring for the poor and oppressed, committing ourselves to His red-letter message just might drive us to see what we can do politically to help those he called, “the least of these” (see Matt. 25:31–46).[2]

On the day of judgment . . . [God] will ask whether or not we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, received and cared for aliens, and brought deliverance to captive peoples (see Matt. 25:31–46).[3]

Campolo sees a political solution in these verses when Jesus is addressing what individuals have or have not done. By politically, Campolo means government intervention and wealth redistribution.

To base government programs like welfare, food stamps, and social security on Matthew 25:31–46 is without foundation. The division in Matthew 25 is between sheep and goats, that is, individuals in nations. Nations don’t visit people in prison; private citizens do. Governments put people in prison; private citizens do not.

Civil governments are the biggest hindrance in helping the poor, and it’s not because they don’t tax enough and redistribute wealth efficiently. High taxes and control of the money supply (inflation/deflation) enable civil governments to control people and their property.

Wealth redistribution policies, with all their good intentions, have the effect of hurting the poor and making them dependent on civil government — forever. Mr. Snyder is advocating what Jesus condemns the Pharisees for in Mark 7:1–13, nullifying the Word of God for the sake of a political tradition that is neither biblical nor effective.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/7759/misguided-christian-supports-obama/#ixzz2AmWsbf00

A blast from the past…

Uploaded by conrad3000 on Sep 14, 2009

The Muppets Statler and Waldorf weigh in on the issue of health care reform from their seats in congress.

%d bloggers like this: