Archive for January 29, 2010

Life is Offensive?

Tim Tebow is a champion on and off the field. The son of missionaries to the Philippines, Tebow is the football phenomenon that almost wasn’t. During her pregnancy, Tebow’s mother Pam was informed that she had contracted dysentery from bad drinking water and that her child would be severely handicapped. She was advised to abort the baby. Pam and her husband Bob refused the suggestion and the rest they say is history.

You would think that such a story would be a source of encouragement and inspiration for millions. It makes perfect sense that such a story would be broadcast in a commercial to be aired during this year’s Superbowl. Who would not want to celebrate life in such a fashion? Well the list of pro-abortion groups who are incensed at this ad and CBS’s decision to air it is long and illustrious.

One of the more notable interviews on the Tebow ad controversy aired on the O’Reilly Factor this past Tuesday evening. Mr. O’Reilly had as his guest Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center. It was interesting to note her complaint about the ad. Watch the following clip:

So according to Ms. Greene, and those whom she represents, the ad is objectionable because celebrating life denies women of their rights? If there is one thing that Ms. Greene illustrates by employing such vacuous statements is that there is not one shred of logic, or moral gravitas that favors abortion on demand. The people who support unrestricted abortion are offended by this ad because the message is clear: abortion is murder. If they cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen and spare the lives of millions of unborn innocents in the process.

I congratulate the Tebow’s and the Focus on the Family organization for wanting to air this ad. I hope that millions will see that life is precious. Too precious to be murdered by the abortion doctors saline solution and suction tubes.

A Letter To Justice Harry Blackmun

April 13, 1994

Mr. Justice Harry A. Blackmun
United States Supreme Court
Washington, D.C.

Your Honor:

The Orlando Sentinel reports that in the prospect of your impending retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court you are wondering what you will be remembered for…

To my mind nothing else that you ever have done can approximate the impact of your support of the majority opinion of the Court in the case of Roe vs. Wade.
This has opened the door to millions of abortions…

for the sake of expediency or selfish motives. It has encouraged millions of women and thousands of physicians to participate in this murderous course.

In 4 B.C. Herod the Great ordered the killing of perhaps a few dozens of babies, but his name remains famous for this “massacre of the innocents” (Matthew 2:16).

In the Civil War of 1861-65, one of the bloodiest on record in terms of the size of the armies involved, there were perhaps close to 500,000 casualties. But Roe vs. Wade has made already 30 million victims since 1973, and this number grows every day.

In World War II, the USA suffered somewhat more than 400,000 deaths due to the conflict: this is only 1/75th of the number of the abortion hecatomb.

In the Viet Nam hostilities there were some 60,000 fatalities. You would need 500 Viet Nam walls, enough to encircle the whole of D.C., to record those put to death by abortion.

The infamous holocaust engineered by the Nazis brought death to some 6,000,000 Jews and other innocent people. The name of Hitler is inextricably associated with this monstrous atrocity. Yet Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Treblinka and others together exterminated only one-fifth of those whose life was snuffed out before birth by Roe vs. Wade.

The Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor cased the death of 2,300 Americans, and President Roosevelt, who surely cannot be accused of being politically right wing, stigmatized this occasion by calling it “a day of infamy.” Now two “decades of infamy” have cost our nation a loss as great as 13,000 “Pearl Harbors.”

Rest assured, therefore, your Honor, that this legacy of yours will ever be remembered and that your name will be associated with it. And unless you repent, when you appear before the Supreme Court of God you may well hear the verdict, “Your brothers; [and sisters’] blood cries out to me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).


Roger Nicole, Ph.D. (Harvard)

P.S. If your parents had practiced what you believe, you might have been aborted, and the United States might have been spared this abomination. If my parents had practiced it, you would not receive this letter.

HT: Justin Taylor

Philosophical Dominoes

“Most modern people appear to resent the past and seek to deny its substance for either of two reasons: (1) it confuses them, or (2) it inhibits them. If it confuses them, they have not thought enough about it; if it inhibits them, we should look with a curious eye upon whatever schemes they have afoot.”

– Richard Weaver in Ideas Have Consequences

There is a line of philosophical dominoes that have fallen throughout history. Humanity has observed, been influenced by and in many cases accepted the tenets of these dominoes. Consider how the following ideas have had a domino-like relationship and how that has shaped the philosophical landscape we have before us today:

Darwinism (1859) – The beliefs of Charles Darwin and his interpretation of biological development were published in his magnum opus On the Origin of the Species. The tenets he proposed in this and other works came to be known as Darwinism. Darwinism cast a shadow on the truth that mankind was created in the image of God. It called into question the value of life and opened the door for “survival of the fittest.”

Eugenics (1865) – Charles Darwin’s views had a profound influence on his cousin Sir Francis Galton. Galton proposed that through selective breeding less desirable traits of humans could be reduced or eliminated. His ideas were further developed into the pseudo-science Eugenics. Eugenics also came to be known as “self directed” human evolution.

Communism (1917) – V.I. Lenin, who was a student of Marx, finds opportunity in the crumbling of the government of Imperial Russia to lead a revolt of Russian workers and peasants. His “October Revolution” laid the foundation for the Communist government which would be fully ensconced shortly thereafter. Lenin is followed by Stalin who institutes mass murders of political enemies that rivals that of Adolf Hitler in Germany.

National Socialism (1919) – Influenced by Darwin, Nietzsche, and Marx, Adolf Hitler transitioned the German Workers party into the National Socialist Party or Nazi Party. Hitler’s doctors and scientists in an attempt to further the pseudo-science of Eugenics perform forced sterilizations, abortions, and other inhuman experiments on political prisoners.

American Progressivism (Early 20th Century) – American Progressives adopt the philosophies of Darwin, Marx, Galton, and others while eschewing the violent tendencies that has resulted from these philosophies. American progressives see that in order to establish economic and social equity the power of the state must inevitably grow. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading political progressive who believed that the Constitution was outdated and needed to be revised to reflect changing political and social sympathies. Wilson was quoted as saying,

“Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin.”

These dominoes have all fallen and lie neatly at the feet of modern “liberal” movement. One of the greatest ironies is that modern liberals are not liberal at all in the historic sense. They are really progressives under a different name. They hold to the same philosophies as their fore-fathers. They support the institutions (i.e. Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NAMBLA, etc.) that have resulted from the philosophies of their founders.

Glenn Beck has recently done a documentary illustrating the line of succession of these philosophical dominoes. His work is an eye-opening examination of how these modern “progressives” are a real threat to the future of our republic. If you are interested in getting more information you can check out Glenn’s website here.

37 Years And Counting

37 years ago today, the supreme court usurped its authority. Its decision on the Roe v. Wade case effectively removed the prerogative of the American people to decide the abortion issue for themselves. This opening of the proverbial “pandora’s box” created a legacy of legislating from the bench that haunts this nation still.

Recently Clarke Forsythe, a bioethics specialist and public policy strategist for Americans United for Life, sat down with uber-blogger Justin Taylor for an interview about the Roe v. Wade decision. Taylor asked Forsythe the million-dollar question of why should roe v. wade overturned. Here is Mr. Forsythe’s response:

“It authorizes the homicide of the unborn child as national policy, a national “right.” It means abortion on demand nationwide as a practical matter, and it is an unjust, unconstitutional usurpation of the people’s right of self-government to decide the abortion issue, as the people decide other controversial issues, through the normal processes of representative government. By contrast, there is no “Roe” on other controversial bioethical issues—like human cloning, stem cell research, or assisted suicide. The Court has not taken them away from the American people; we decide these issues through the public officials we elect. In addition to the questions of moral principle and constitutional authority, there is the question of governmental competence: the Court has demonstrated through its incompetence over the past 37 years that the American people can better decide the abortion issue than the Court. And for women’s health, the Court created a public health vacuum—meaning that women are not informed of the medical risks, among other things, and abortion clinics are little regulated. At the very least, that vacuum should be filled by regulations enforced by local public health officials.”

There are many gems in this interview and I strongly urge you to go and read it. Setting the moral question aside, Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned. The constitution was written to empower the people to decide such complex moral issues not an appointed judge. May God speed the day when we the people have our say and abortion is relegated to an extreme and unusual category of medical practice.

HT: Justin Taylor