en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en fr fr en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en fr en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ca en nl de en id en en en en fr en en en en en de sl en en en en en en ca en ceb en en en en en en en it en en en fr en sl en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en de en en
At Live Action News, Sarah Terzo refutes the outrageous claims of pro-abortion Methodist minister John M. Swomley, who argues that preborn children are not innocent (due to original sin) and therefore cannot be considered harmless if their existence produces a threat to their mothers. As outrageous as these arguments are, it is even sadder to hear them coming from purported representatives of the Gospel. Terzo rightly points out:
Swomley’s argument would also justify infanticide. A baby outside the womb would still be considered to have “Original Sin” until baptism, in many faith traditions. Therefore, prior to the moment when the priest or pastor pours water on the child’s forehead (or baptizes him some other way) it would be permissible to kill the child.
Jun.03, 2015 3:59 pm | Blogs 7 Comments
Why is it that the people most vocally committed to causes connected to death (abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia) are often the same who are committed to progressive sexual causes? And why do abortion advocates frequently see it not as a necessary evil but as a positive good?… Make no mistake: The giddy, grinning delight which […]
Apr.18, 2015 10:17 am | Apologetics 27 Comments
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
At First Things, J.D. Flynn pens a beautiful response to noted atheist Richard Dawkins’ controversial Tweet about the “immorality” of allowing children with Down syndrome to be born. As an adoptive father of two children with Down syndrome, Flynn’s post is a must read:
You’ve often said that people who disagree with you should “go away, and learn how to think.” I’ve tried to learn to think, over the years, but perhaps I am naive in some ways. But one of things I’ve concluded is that ethical philosophy can’t be done in a sterile environment — that our humanity, our intuition, our empathy, in fact, must be recognized as a source of ethical insight if we want to think well. Perhaps you believe that your position on abortion and down syndrome is logically valid. But I wonder if you’re kept awake at night by the revulsion that comes with being the champion of killing.
Aug.26, 2014 3:30 pm | Blogs 5 Comments
Pro-lifers hopeful Supreme Court will now revisit “undue burden” test
To no one’s surprise, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson, pictured right, ruled on August 4 that Alabama’s law forcing abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals was unconstitutional.
This is the same judge, after all, who forced the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama capitol building. He’s a devout liberal, handpicked by the abortion industry to rule on this case. Noted Dr. Michael New at First Things:
Aug.08, 2014 9:00 am | The Courts 9 Comments
Pro-life blog buzz 8-5-14
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
Bound4Life writes about Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in which they are seeking to prevent the enforcement of legislation that would require them to prescribe the chemical abortion pill RU-486 according FDA safety guidelines. So much for caring about women’s safety.
Aug.05, 2014 3:30 pm | Blogs 15 Comments
Pro-life news brief 7-1-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat At First Things, Christopher Kaczor writes about the gradualist development of the right to life and why we should reject it: We should reject, for example, the analogy between the gradual development of a right to life and the gradual attainment of other rights. There is a radical […]
Jul.01, 2013 5:00 pm | Blogs 3 Comments
From “safe, legal and rare” to an abortion free-for-all
Whatever happened to keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare”? Those goals just don’t fit the needs of the abortion industry anymore. Last night the abortion crowd, or perhaps I should say “mob”… managed to filibuster a [Texas] bill which would help regulate abortions…. Why did a senator oppose the bill with hours of filibustering? Why […]
Jun.27, 2013 1:00 am | Political anti-life bias 39 Comments
Pro-life news brief 6-6-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
In First Things, Clarke Forsythe discusses how the Supreme Court helped create abortionists like Kermit Gosnell:
Because the Justices foolishly believed that abortion had few risks, and that abortion providers should have complete discretion to decide how to perform abortions in the first trimester, the Justices said that state and local officials could not regulate them in the first trimester. The Justices prohibited state health and safety regulations for abortion clinics in the first trimester of pregnancy when 90 percent of abortions are performed.
Jun.06, 2013 3:44 pm | Blogs 10 Comments
Who Is Jill Stanek?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.