An Opportunity to Help a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Need

I saw this via JT and it is important enough to pass along:

A lot of people wonder if there is anything practical and helpful they can do to reduce abortion and to help hurting women in need. One of the best ministries with boots on the ground is Heartbeat of Miami (started by John Ensor). But they are seriously hurting these days and they may have to close their doors. Mike Seaver has a helpful post explaining their need and how you could help:

Heartbeat of Miami is a crisis pregnancy center that was strategically planted in Miami, Florida, the city in the USA with the highest abortion rate. John Ensor and others had a vision for planting these centers in strategic cities and this was their first one. Here are some staggering statistics.

• They are the only crisis pregnancy center in that part of the city and there are 37 abortion clinics.


• In 3 years that Heartbeat of Miami has been open, over 4000 ladies have been served and over 1000 babies have been saved.


• Their financial support is down 48% this year.

Please consider making a donation...even a $5 donation to help unborn babies have the gift of life. You can go here to donate. There is also a matching program through the end of August 2009, so if you give $5...it is acutally like giving $10. If you give $50...it is like giving $100. Please pray and if you feel the Lord leading you, please give.

See their vision video below:

Mainstream media on health care

The media seems, in my very limited perspective, to at least in part be shifting its concerns some regarding some of the recent legislation being pushed.

From Time magazine:

For Stupak, the pro-life Democrat, the battle over abortion in health-care reform is certain to continue when Congress returns from recess. "We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor," Stupak says, adding that as many as 39 Democratic members of Congress may join him in the effort. It remains unclear how the Senate will deal with the abortion issue. There is also no consensus within the Democratic Party about whether a public option should be included in final health-care-reform legislation.

In the meantime, Stupak says that Obama's statements during recent public events signal one of two things: either he does not fully understand the current House bill, which Stupak maintains has the effect of publicly funding abortion, or "if he is aware of it, and he is making these statements, then he is misleading people."

Also, this clip from ABC's 20/20 is interesting.

A delightful irony

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, presents a shocking new perspective (at least to me) on the abortion issue.  He says abortionists (an historically feminist movement), in the name of women's liberation, are actually unintentionally contributing to the cause of male dominance.  I bet they wouldn't see this one coming!:

The obvious question is this -- how is it that feminists, the abortion industry, and the advocates of abortion rights get away with their claim that abortion liberates women? In truth, the availability of abortion has served to liberate irresponsible men from duty, morality, and responsibility. Of course, the even greater tragedy is the death of unborn children by the millions.  Only the Culture of Death would present the slaughter of the innocents as liberation.

Obama vs. Lincoln

 The below is an excerpt from an astute article regarding Obama's history with the abortion issue in comparison to Lincoln's history with the slavery issue:

In speech, action, and deference to the Constitution and laws, the contrast between Lincoln on slavery and Obama on abortion could hardly be plainer. While Lincoln was clear in speech, moderate in action, and put the Constitution above his most cherished policy goals, Obama has been obfuscatory in speech, immoderate in action, and has put his personal policy goals above the Constitution — including letting those goals strongly influence whom to nominate to the Supreme Court.

The Illogic of Abortion

A great brief story of victory on the abortion issue in Louisville, KY:

Go to story here

And a good quote from a related post on the illogic of abortionists:

Pro-choice individuals claim to have the best interest of the mother in mind (by the way, why do they refer to expecting ladies as “the mother” if they don’t believe there is a life?)

How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

Speaking of Scott Klusendorf, here is an interview with him regarding the same issues in my previous blog post.  His answer to the title's question:

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

YOU can't stop abortion

This is an expected response to the murder of George Tiller, they will merely fill his position with someone else, although I am not as optimistic that changing the law will prevent abortions.  People will still have abortions, it's just a matter of whether the mother will be put in danger or not because of the lack of medical license to perform them.  While it's a truly sad situation on all aspects, I believe mothers are responsible for their actions and should they choose to abort their children their lives are in their own hands.  But the laws on abortion must change.

Approaching this subject as social commentators, the question is whether we will be reductionistic or not.  What I mean is, we sacrifice all considerations/ aspects on the issue reducing the level of complexity of questions, save one: the one we focus on.  For example, we could approach it by proposing any number of things to fix the problem, such as:

• The murder of abortion doctors outside of the law (see how logical this argument is)
  
• Changing the laws
  
• Protesting abortion
• Start organizations
• Blog about it (I love contradicting myself)
  
• etc.
  

The "pro-life movement" has dabbled in all of these (if we can even include doctor murderers in this), but it is naive and foolish (and I would argue a tad idolistic) to think that we can fix this problem if we just do these things.  Granted, Christians (and those who believe in the humanity of the unborn) should stand up for the truth, but at some point there must be recognition that our efforts are very limited.  We cannot control the actions (much less the thoughts, if we are to believe Jesus' teaching on murder, Mt. 5:21) of others and make them be obedient to God, especially if they are unbelievers.  It is cruel and foolish to think that we can force those who do not know God know him and obey his commandments, including the issue of abortion.  Regardless of what the law is, people are going to continue breaking it and/or doing what they want.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the laws to honor God's laws (to avoid being reductionistic on the other side), but we should behave with prudence regarding all aspects of the issue and accept where we are powerless, and obey the statues of the land we live in.

The solution as I see it is this:  we must trust in God.  In his justice, in his laws, in his power, in his involvement in the world, and in his empowerment of his followers to do the right things we must trust.  This means we do all we can to stop the murdering of the unborn by changing the laws, while living in the land we do with the laws we have, which we must respect because of God's appointing of all world leaders.  We should speak and publish and protest to defend the pro-life position (see Scott Klusendorf whose work on abortion is impressive and much better than this blog, this argument is unbeatable, also this one, which is shorter).  Perhaps above all, we should pray for the country, that God would enact justice where it is due and have mercy on all.

"The Hand of Hope"

This is a cool story about the baby boy, who's now 9 years old, who was photographed grasping a doctor's hand when a surgery was being performed on him from his mother's womb.  Here's the link for the photos (caution, these are graphic).

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless "babies their right to live" and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of.
"It's very important to me," Samuel said of the photograph. "A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen."

Abortion and Obama

I think that the abortion question, about when the unborn becomes a human or not, stems historically from the farce of evolutionary scientists (Ernst Haeckel, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) that upon conception of the egg the early phases and development of human life in the womb resembles closely that of a fish, an amphibian, a primate, and the rest of the evolutionary steps leading to humans. This leads to the conclusion that the young fetus is in essence the same as a fish or an amphibian, and is therefore equal in value and can be aborted without moral concern. This argument has virtually been laughed away I believe in the scientific world, as well as the civil discourse world, but I feel the heart of the argument is still being pushed in the same circus of a debate between the left and right, by the new tactic involving avoiding addressing the question anymore. Why, have we reached a national consensus on it? Are we closer to solving the problem? Is there a question that precedes this one in urgency? Perhaps there is. Instead, the real question is being skirted and dealt with very diplomatically (read: political cowardice). Obama says the question is "above [his] paygrade." (in Rick Warren’s “Civil Forum on the Presidency” August 16) What a cop out to an honest and necessary question. There is no one on this planet that doesn't have an opinion on abortion; why can't he just answer the question? All for the sake of avoiding division I presume. How freaking spineless can you be? I don't get it.

The pro-choice culture’s opinion about abortion has the same stance it has since the days of Roe v. Wade, but completely lacks in its argument now that this evolutionary-type answer has been discarded, showing its ridiculousness. The position is still the same: abortion is morally okay. But there is no longer any substance to back it up. Not that there ever was much.