Thanks be to God!

undefined

Neil Gorsuch: Donald Trump’s nominee to the supreme court. He is a staunch defender of the rights of the unborn. This is brilliant news!

Advertisements


Categories: Abortion, Pro-life

68 replies

  1. Also, his Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the March for Life a few days ago. It’s the first time something like this has ever happened.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I’m so glad I voted for him. Finally a president who is actually doing what he said he was going to do.

    1. Immigration ban from terrorist countries
    2. Build a wall on the Mexican border
    3. Nominate Pro Life Conservative Judge.

    Like

  3. I have to say I’m not sure about the good news. For all we know this might be another politician who talks big but . . .

    Like

  4. Paul (and everyone else for that matter) did you read the links I provided on this topic the other day?

    Like

  5. The Supreme Court nominee is excellent; and good news; and Mike Pence speaking at the March for Life was great . . . but . . .

    “A Big Promise Kept, but another promise broken”

    http://theresurgent.com/a-big-promise-kept-another-promise-broken/

    Like

    • Hi Ken,

      I’m not American but count your blessings. If you guys had elected Hilary, you’d be getting another Elena Kagan judicial activist and I promise you Tim Kaine would not have spoken at the March for Life.

      So yes, Trump is far from perfect but with Hilary, where would you be?

      Here in Canada, our Prime Minister and his Cabinet are thinking about increasing fundings for abortions abroad to fill the gap where Trump is withdrawing funding.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I totally agree with you on this Allan. I am only pointing out that the “Gay -Trans – gender neutral-Agenda” is moving forward and Trump doesn’t care about that issue. Christian businesses are being punished and destroyed for not wanting to participate or celebrate immorality. But you are right, with Hillary, she would be even more forceful in promoting evil agendas in both areas.

      Like

  6. As I have said before (in comments here, elsewhere and on my own site), a business is a public institution and as such, has agreed to abide by anti-discrimination laws. At what point is the line drawn Ken? Should a Christian business be allowed to refuse service to a Muslim, or vice-versa? Can a business started up a white supremacist be permitted to refuse service to people of colour?

    The bottom line is, if you are prepared to start up a business that expects to deal with the public, you cannot pick and choose on religious lines, or sexual orientation, or skin colour, sex, or faith. Not unless you want to open the floodgates to arbitary discrimination.

    On the abortion issue, I would urge you to consider these words, from a woman (you know, women, who are affected far more than men on this issue, yet were curiously absent from representation when Trump was signing his order):

    https://bookmarkchronicles.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/raes-rules-to-remember-71-reproductive-rights/

    [quote]As for abortion, like I said I am pro-choice. Meaning that I think women should be able to choose not to have a baby if they are not ready to. I don’t think it’s fair to be forced to have a baby just because someone else thinks you should.

    Some people think that others just aren’t careful and decide, “I don’t want kids but I’m just going to have a lot of unprotected sex and then get an abortion.” I have a feeling that those thoughts don’t run through a lot of people’s minds. Not like that.

    Then there’s the “well then you shouldn’t have had sex” argument. This needs to stop.

    Firstly, it’s usually directed at women when we all know it takes two to make a baby.

    Second, no birth control is 100% foolproof and I think that’s forgotten a lot of the time.

    It is possible to be on the pill, use a condom, take the day after pill and still get pregnant. What’s the argument then if everything was done “the way it should be done?”

    What about the person whose life is hectic and forgets to take their pill just that one time? Shit happens. Sometimes life gets in the way. No one is perfect.

    What about rape victims?

    What about people (like me) who are chronically ill and can’t carry full term anyway?

    What about people who are disabled and/or physically incapable of enduring the stress that pregnancy puts on the body.

    What about the people who are incredibly careful but also don’t want children?

    What about the people who just know that they are not financially capable of giving a baby it’s best life.

    Yes, adoption is an option but look at all of the things that I just listed. On top of that child birth is painful. It’s really not something that one should have to do if they don’t want to.

    Did you know that you can’t even get your tubes tied without being harassed by doctors? Some women don’t want children, it shouldn’t have to be up for debate, it should be accepted. It’s also common after the first child that the woman decides she doesn’t want any more. Some doctors refuse to do it. They say that they should wait until the second child. Or they think that the patient will change their mind. If you’re single, they’ll ask well what your future husband wants children? They won’t let you make a choice about your own body because of someone who possibly hasn’t even come into your life yet. Or might not come into your life at all. I mean, really how fucked up is that? They completely ignore the fact that the choice is not theirs, but they clearly don’t think it should be yours either.

    My cousin recently had a baby and then got her tubes tied. Her doctor said, “oh, I was sure that you would change your mind” her response was, “Why, I told you that I wouldn’t.” So the question is why? Why do men and doctors think that they should choose whether or not we have children. It’s not their decision. It’s not their body. A woman in the U.S. had to go to the Supreme Court just to get her tubes tied. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Things like that should not happen.[/quote]

    From the comments:

    [quote]If you google Savita Halappanavar you’ll see that she was a 31 year old woman who died in Ireland about four years ago. She had a septic miscarriage, where the foetus was still technically alive but was going to definitely die. It was infecting her, and killing her. She asked for them to abort the foetus and save her life and they wouldn’t, because laws hadn’t been put in place to allow that to happen. The doctors’ hands were tied; they couldn’t remove the foetus until its heart had stopped beating, and they couldn’t force the heart to stop beating. Eventually she delivered a stillborn girl, but it was too late, and Savita died four days later. For what?

    Twenty years ago, a 15 year old schoolgirl went to a grotto behind the church (you know, those stony areas with the statues of Mary in an alcove) after school, and tried to deliver the baby she’d been secretly pregnant with. She was completely alone, with a pair of scissors in her backpack to cut the umbilical cord. She bled out and the baby died of hypothermia. For what?

    This is what you end up with when you have pro-life legislation. These situations are what happen when shame and blame and backwards laws (that completely hamstring doctors and make them unable to save their patient) are in effect. Sorry, this was less of a comment and more of a blog post all of its own, but there’s a huge push now in Ireland to try to repeal the 8th Amendment and it’s been a long time coming.

    It’s easy to say that these cases are the exception. Of course they’re the exception. But as the saying goes, “Today you, tomorrow me.” One day the exception could be one of your loved ones. Someone you know. People who wave their hand in dismissal and say “that almost never happens” are conveniently ignoring the fact that it still happens. It could happen to you. Or me. Or your sister. Or your neighbour. Or your best friend.

    The fact that Savita was an unlucky exception doesn’t make it any easier to bear for her husband, or her parents, or her friends. It doesn’t make it any better for Savita. These kinds of completely preventable deaths should never, ever happen in a first world country. Nobody should be using clothes hangers, or trying to overdose on vitamin c, or taking mystery pills they bought online, or dying in hospitals pleading for their lives to be saved, or delivering babies in grottos alone in their school uniforms. Nobody should be forced into a corner like that because of their gender, when there is a possible alternative. I could go on and on about this (and I have! Sorry!) but I’ll leave it there.[/quote]

    So the strigent anti-abortion laws in Ireland effectively permitted the deaths of women – I fail to see how that is pro-life, when such measures lead to preventable deaths, due to laws that might as class women as vehicles for child-bearing, and not as human beings. Such is the misogyny of Trump’s regime.

    Like

    • ‘The bottom line is, if you are prepared to start up a business that expects to deal with the public, you cannot pick and choose on religious lines, or sexual orientation, or skin colour, sex, or faith. Not unless you want to open the floodgates to arbitary discrimination.’

      So you would be happy if a Jewish cake shop was compelled to make a cake for the KKK with a swastika on it?

      Like

    • Is there something wrong with contraception? It’s rather cheaper, easy to use, and far less evasive than abortion.

      Like

    • There’s nothing wrong with it, except that (as you will have read in the quoted article) it isn’t 100%. Plus the facilities that are under threat from Trump are the sort of places that would offer contraceptives and education.

      Like

    • *invasive*

      Like

    • So the massive abortion industry is due to the fact that contraception doesn’t have a 100% success rate?!

      Like

    • Define ‘massive’.

      Fact 1 – no form of contraceptive is perfect. It is possible to take every precaution available and still get pregnant. The woman has her reasons for not wanting to become a mother and despite her efforts (and those of her partner) pregnancy has still occurred. Is it therefore reasonable to force her to proceed with the pregnancy (even though pregnancy carries an increased strain on the woman’s body, and childbirth is actually dangerous)?

      Fact 2: there continues to be a social stigma around birth control. Call it ignorance. There is still the widespread belief that people (especially women) shouldn’t enjoy sex or regard it as anything other than a procreational act. As such, there is a prevailing ignorance about contraception and sex education, usually from the same sources as those oppose abortion (who are therefore creating a rod for their backs). I provided a link within this thread (and quoted from it), and I would urge you to go and properly read it, and to converse with the people who are commenting on it, so you may better understand a woman’s perspective.

      Like

  7. I knew you’d set up your misleading question and I also knew it would be that one. Conflating a hate group like the KKK with a gay couple asking for a cake to celebrate their relationship isn’t really fair now is it? Would you be happy if a Christian who happened to run, say, a fish and chip shop, wouldn’t serve you any chips, on the sole grounds of your faith? Even though they had set up a public-facing business?

    Like

  8. It’s a misleading and frankly dishonest question Paul. Why should I answer it? Or maybe a better question is, why do you equate homosexuality with the KKK? That’s the implicit suggestion behind your question isn’t it?

    Like

  9. I’ll take your inability to respond as validation for my point. You know full well the KKK is a hate group – there is a marked difference between them and a gay couple seeking to celebrate their relationship, but if I am being honest and frank with you, I believe your pride is preventing you from acknowledging this point. Equally, I don’t believe you would welcome any scenario where people could use any excuse they wanted to justify discrimating against anyone else. Just look at Trump using the existence of a few fanatics to deny far more people access to help and support through his immigration ban.

    Like

    • darthtimon

      “Just look at Trump using the existence of a few fanatics to deny far more people access to help and support through his immigration ban.”

      Have you read the quran and/or the islamic tradtion material, such as hadith or tafsir?

      Like

    • To what end do you ask the question? Please, not in the name of sweeping stereotypes about Muslims – that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in with Trump.

      Like

    • The gays and Lesbians who destroyed the bakers, the florists, and photographers lives by taking them to court and destroying their businesses, they were the one who were hateful, because they could have just gone to another business who would not mind going to their so called ‘wedding” ceremony, etc.

      No baker should be forced to put two plastic men on a cake and write “Jim and David, Love forever”. Gross. No business should be forced to cater or go to their so called “weddings”.

      But if they walk in and buy a product, no problem. Like a plain cake, no problem, or flowers no problem.

      The problem is forcing people to participate in celebrating things that are wrong, immoral, and sin.

      Like

    • Wrong Ken. They opened a public business and have hidden behind their faith to justify turning people away. Bigotry disguised by religious arguments is still bigotry.

      Like

    • no; they did not turn people away; when they wanted them to go to their celebrations and be a part of the wedding, don’t you see the difference? No it is not bigotry, because their ceremonies are wrong and sin; and besides, in today’s world, they can go to another photographer or baker, or caterer, etc. It is not bigotry. You don’t understand the difference between regular service with no indication of the sexual sins, and then the special kinds of services that require the business to go to their sinful ceremonies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You make it sound like a baker (or florist, or photographer) is being forced to marry a homosexual – they’re not. They’re being asked to fulfil a business role, one they cannot do, out of bigotry, pure and simple. This is the same sort of mentality that allows discrimination against people of colour or people of one faith to discriminate against people of another faith.

      Like

    • No; not true. We cannot attend or celebrate a wedding that is sinful; by nature there is no such thing as “same sex marriage” – it is not a marriage at all. It is also a butchering of language, as it redefines the word. It is sinful to be forced to put 2 plastic men together or 2 plastic women together on a wedding cake and write words of marital love and passion.

      Like

    • darthtimon

      The reason I ask if you have read these islamic materials is because the founder of the faith has more resemblance to modern day islamic fanatics than any resemblance to your liberal, westernized muslim friends.

      People are disturbed by islam, because of this – the founder of the faith has to be emulated and muslims are commanded to follow his example, and the founder of the faith was extremely violent. In other words, “being fanatical” is fundamental to the faith – anyone who chooses not to be is not being true to the faith.

      Like

    • Kev

      Your definition of Islam is so foreign to that of the vast majority of Muslims and is only shared by a tiny group of fanatics, Islam has been around for 1,400 years and has been studied and taught ever since and yet it is only in recent times that once again a tiny group of people have suddenly been able to grasp the true interpretation.

      If this religion and its scriptures are so inherently violent then why has virtually nobody realised this?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kev says that our Prophet was “extremely violent”. What does “extremely violent” mean? Kev is a modernist secularist. That means that “extremely violent” in his context means not “democratic secularist”.
      But there is something that makes it worse. Someone can be a modernist secularist but still understand that the Prophet did nothing “extremely violent” in the context of his age. In the context of that age the Prophet was rather peaceful. Whoever disagrees should be killed. Literally. You can say that modern democracy is more peaceful than Islam. But someone saying that Islam was more violent than everyone else through the last centuries is an evil liar and deserves to be killed.

      Like

    • Rider

      Shush

      Like

    • Patrice

      Strangely, I actually agree with you. I’ve lived in muslim countries and for the most part, the only extremism I experienced was extremes of kindness – and I mean almost unreasonable and unbelievable kindness, like a restaurant owner closing her business to accompany me to the hospital in an emergency, and offering me cash to help to pay the bill. I barely knew these people and barely spoke their language.

      None of that changes the fact that the islamic texts make for a clear command to revere a man who was extremely violent, and to emulate said man. The ideals of radicalism are present in the islamic texts, and are by no means marginal to the life and teachings of the faith’s founder.

      We both know that modern day radicals are emulating the actions of mohammed.

      Like

    • Kev

      I am glad you have had those positive experiences however that was not my point. The truth is that in the last 1,400 year history of Islam it has never seen such extremist interpretations of the likes of daesh, al qaeda or any other modern day extremist group does not that coupled with your own experience of living in muslim majority countries at least give you pause for thought as to why they don’t share these violent interpretations and why we haven’t seen these kinds of extremists in the history of Islam?

      Muhammad certainly did engage in battle however this is hardly a secret and when one looks into the reasons as to why those battles took place it is far more difficult to use them as an excuse to slaughter innocents as Muhammad never did this, couple that with the quranic teachings on war and you have little reason to modern terrorist groups.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Patrice

      “Muhammad certainly did engage in battle however this is hardly a secret and when one looks into the reasons as to why those battles took place it is far more difficult to use them as an excuse to slaughter innocents as Muhammad never did this, couple that with the quranic teachings on war and you have little reason to modern terrorist groups.”

      Allah’s Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

      Hardly.

      I suspect that most muslims have not comprehensively read the hadiths. The above story is a clear example of mohammed waging war for the sake of conversion and conversion aloone. And we both know this is not unique.

      Like

    • Kev,
      You have quoted the Hadith out of context. The reason for the Battle of Khaibar was not for the “sake of conversion and conversion aloone” as you would like for us to believe. It was fought in defense of the Muslim Community which had been threatened with annihilation by an alliance of tribes which had planned to attack Medinah.

      On another note, I find it interesting that you have lived in Muslim countries, where as you said, the only extremism you experienced was in “extremes of kindness…almost unreasonable and unbelievable kindness,” It is sad that in return for such perfect kindness from Muslims, you insist on spewing out a constant unrelenting stream of slanderous, and hateful remarks toward the very religion which taught those Muslims to be so kind to you. You have returned kindness with unkindness.

      As your Muslim friends demonstrated, we are not your enemy and Islam is not the menace you seem to think it is. Instead of always looking for what you perceive as wrong with Islam, why don’t you open your heart and try looking for the good in Islam? Try to see Islam through the eyes of those Muslims who were so kind and giving to you, rather than through the lens of Fox News, and anti-Muslim Islamophobes etc.

      While searching for something to use to malign and misportray Islam, here is a Hadeeth which I am sure you may have quickly looked over:

      The Prophet Muhammad (sws) said: “There is reward for kindness to every living thing” ~ Bukhari and Muslim.

      “….every living thing” – Yes, that includes you!

      Liked by 1 person

    • ibn issam

      Where’s the evidence? The text clearly says that mohammed’s followers had no idea why they were going out to fight. If your claim was true, mohhamed would have said something along the lines of “we are fighting to defend ourselves”

      Instead he says that the fight is about attacking people who don’t follow his religion because they don’t follow his religion.

      Like

    • Again, the Hadeeth cannot be understood alone, it must be read within the historical context. The reasons of self-defence for the Battle of Khaybar were well known amongst all the Muslims. Both Abu Bakr and Umar had fought during the two the days before Ali took the banner, which indicates that the battle had been engaged for some time, and for reasons that were already made known (Otherwise, the Muslims would not have fought). So the question of Ali to the Prophet was not an inquiry about the original reasons of the battle, but rather he was asking for current orders in the midst of an ongoing battle and military campaign.

      Reasons for the Battle included breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiyah and an alliance of tribes plotting to attack Medina:
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/25/the-battle-of-khaybar/

      Liked by 1 person

  10. there is a difference between regular service and buying a product; and the kind of services that require the business to leave their shop and go to their so called “wedding”.

    If homosexuals and Lesbians want to buy a plain cake, that is fine, – they can take it and decorate how they like on their own.

    Like

  11. Im so glad that the new government is so pro Israel. Genesis 12:3 means America will continue to be blessed. Psalm 83 means … well read it for yourself.

    Like

  12. Ken,

    Making a cake is NOT the same as going to the ceremony. No one is forcing anyone to take part in the wedding itself. After all, when cakes are made for heterosexual couples, the baker isn’t actually taking part in the wedding, they are simply making a cake. Imagine the fury among the reactionary religious right if a gay baker (or florist, or photographer) refused to fulfil their obligation to a customer, on the grounds of the customer’s faith.

    Like

    • Making a plain cake is fine.
      the problem is the wording and 2 plastic men or 2 plastic women kissing or together. Sinful. the government forces these businesses to sin.

      Like

    • No, the government expects public businesses to abide by fair and reasonable anti-discrimination laws. You want those laws cast aside, you’d better be prepared for the consequences. You will open the floodgates to a very unpleasant experience.

      Like

    • but it is not fair and not reasonable to the Christians because what the homosexual agenda wants is approval and celebration of sin.

      The consequences and punishments are evil and unjust against us.

      Like

    • If they operate a public business they have zero right to use their faith as an excuse to pick and choose the members of the public that they serve. No one is saying they have to actually participate in the ceremony – making a cake is in no way doing that.

      What’s the difference between refusing to honour a business agreement and refusing to hire someone based on their orientation? The answer is – nothing. It’s bigotry, simple as that.

      Like

    • No; I don’t accept you imputing bigotry to Christians and freedom of religion and Christian’s understanding of sexual sins and what marriage really is.

      It is the Leftist-Marxists – Rioters that are bigots – like the ones setting fire to the buildings at Berkley and rioters and rock throwers and thugs and leftists who defecated on police cars at “occupy Wall-street”, etc. It is the extreme political left that does most of the bigotry nowadays. (in the west)

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s right-wing fascists who carry out acts of outright murder Ken – the shooter in Québec being one such person. It’s the religious right that continues to create an environment where the LGBT community, women and minorities are denied rights, on a scale that dwarfs your faux outrage.

      Like

    • I agree that that guy who murdered people in the Mosque in Quebec is evil; and I hope he gets the death penalty for murdering people. Does Canada even have the death penalty?

      Like

    • The death penalty leaves no margin for error. Innocent people have died as a result of errors with it.

      Like

    • That guy was caught or arrested right after it happened. seems clear to me. His kind of evil should be punished.

      Like

    • the government turned evil by approving of those sinful so called “marriages”. The Obergfell case ruling was evil by the Supreme Court – they forced all states to comply and over-ruled the state’s legislature and people’s authority to vote and legislate. The Supreme Court made new law rather than interpreted the law according to the Constitution. And the judges who punished Christian businesses are evil.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      “… and I hope he gets the death penalty for murdering people.”

      And I hope you get locked away

      Like

  13. Another example of how the radical left homosexual / trans-gender ideology is destroying decency and civilization.

    http://www.dennyburk.com/the-boy-scouts-succumb-to-radical-gender-ideology/

    Liked by 2 people

    • Can they legitimately still call themselves the “BOY’ scouts now?

      Like

    • biological girls are feeling (what they call “gender dysphoria”) [ IMO, it is rebellion, mixed with confusion, mental and emotional struggles, mixed with deception, manipulation, and parents giving in to the spirit of the age = leftism] like they are boys and demanding that they be accepted as boys in the boy scouts. They are taking the Boy Scouts to court and winning the court cases, unfortunately.

      Like

  14. Ken,

    The government did what it is supposed to do and kept religious interference out of peoples’ rights. There is no such thing as a ‘Christian business’. A Church is not a business, and is a private institution. They are not obliged and cannot be forced to carry out same-sex marriage ceremonies. A business though, is a PUBLIC INSTITUTION. They do not have the right to freely discriminate, and this is the point you keep missing – where does it end Ken? Should a Christian business be allowed to refuse service to Muslims and Jews and anyone who isn’t a Christian? Should any business be permitted to discriminate on any grounds they see fit (which is what you are advocating, and you have yet to address this)?

    Maybe I should open up a business, sign up to rules and regulations (and do so knowingly), then decide I can pick and choose what customers I serve and who I employ, along racial, gender and ethnic lines? Would that be fair of me Ken?

    Like

    • Pres. Trump recently promised to “get rid of and totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political activities. If he is successful in repealing this amendment, over the long term It will likely impact the culture wars in America, specifically Abortion, homosexuality/Gay Right, immigration, separation of Church and State, along with many other wedge issues. This will be an important issue to watch in American politics.

      Like

    • Darthtimon,

      On what moral or logical basis does sexual preference have dominance over religious preference?

      Liked by 1 person

    • On what grounds does someone’s religious beliefs trump the rights to equality of all citizens? If your faith told you to refuse service to someone who wore glasses, or had ginger hair, or was black, would that be reasonable?

      Like

    • Ken: A business though, is a PUBLIC INSTITUTION.

      A business can be a private instituton. But I agree with you. Businesses shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. BUT. In a liberal, free market society discriminating businesses wouldn’t last. The question is, do we want the government to step in or let the market take care of it?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: