Flower

Archive for the ‘Pro Life’ Category

CBR Appoints Joanna Keilson as Project Director for Carolinas

Welcome to CBR Joanna!

Welcome Joanna Keilson!

We are pleased to welcome Joanna Keilson of Cary, North Carolina to the CBR family.  Joanna is a graduate of UNC Greensboro, having earned her BS degree in Public Health Education.

Pro-life activism is in Joanna’s DNA.  Her mother helped start one of the first crisis pregnancy centers in Maryland.  While a student, Joanna led the campus arm of the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center.

After graduation, she began to explore career options.  For years, she felt God tugging at her heart.  But the abortion thing?  Really?  She knew somebody should do something, but couldn’t it be somebody else?  Or maybe child sacrifice would just fix itself.  Yeah, right.

She was planning to go back to school and perhaps become a doctor, but then she met CBR at a national conference.  [Note: your checks to CBR make it possible for us to meet outstanding young people like Joanna and bring them into our movement.]

It was a real tug-of-war between CBR and med school, and the children won out!

Welcome aboard, Joanna!  We’re expecting great things from you!

If you’d like to share in this work, it’s quick, easy, and secure to support CBR online.  Whatever you can do will make a huge difference.   To support Joanna’s work, designate your gift for “Carolina Project Director (SE-JLK).”

Aborting women: crime and punishment

A woman should be punished for this?

A woman should be punished for this?

by Gregg Cunningham

CBR strongly believes that a post-abortive woman is abortion’s second victim, and that abortion already punishes women with tragic severity without ever prosecuting them.

We understand experientially that every woman who aborts knows that what she is doing is wrong, but few understand how wrong.  The humanity of the child is systematically hidden from her by society.  The inhumanity of abortion is methodically hidden from her by society.  Women are lied to about prenatal development and abortion by their teachers, the press, and the entire medical establishment.  The pro-life movement and even the church have unwittingly conspired with Planned Parenthood to hide the horror of abortion.

We allow them to be lied to and then some would punish them for believing the lie?  Where is the love in that betrayal?

Countless pregnant women have told us they have changed their minds about “pregnancy termination” when shown the inexpressible evil of abortion.  Countless post-abortive women have told us they would have never aborted had someone shown them that truth before instead of after they aborted.

The Centers For Disease Control report that nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more previous abortion.  Post-abortive women are among those most at risk of aborting, and are, therefore, among those in greatest need of seeing our deeply disturbing abortion photos – lest they do it again!

These women are not without fault, but it is moral fault, not criminal fault.  The remedy is spiritual, not penal.  They are often panic-stricken.  Many are being coerced by threats of abandonment made by boyfriends, fathers, husbands, etc., who say “This pregnancy will ruin your life!”  What they really mean is “This pregnancy will ruin my life!”

It is, thankfully, impossibly unlikely that the public (even the pro-life public) would support the enactment of criminal penalties regarding post-abortive women.  The mere attempt to enact such legislation would forever discredit our movement.

The enactment of such an insensitive penalty would merely be a pyrrhic victory for the most vindictive among us, because police would virtually never be willing to arrest post-abortive women; prosecutors wouldn’t charge them; juries wouldn’t convict them; and judges wouldn’t imprison them.

Society has already entered into a period of shocking lawlessness when authorities are refusing to enforce enormous numbers of laws.  All that would result from the futile prosecutions of post-abortive women would be a black eye for pro-lifers whose lack of compassion would confirm the accusations that we are misogynous bullies who hypocritically claim to care about the suffering of post-abortive women and then brutalize them as savagely as the abortion industry.

Gregg Cunningham is the Executive Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and a frequent contributor to FAB.

Assaulted by Molech at the March for Life

by Nicole Cooley

a - Molech

Abortion is child sacrifice. (Click for a larger image.)

As part-time staff for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR), I knew Molech would appear at the March for Life (MFL) this year.  Marching with my oldest sons and pro-life friends from church, CBR’s latest MFL exhibit assaulted our eyes and our ears like nothing I’d ever experienced.

Unlike my CBR colleagues, I didn’t know what to expect.  I was unprepared for the horrific Molech exhibit, just like everybody else.  We had no idea what we were marching into.

Combined sign panels produced an image of a priest of Molech holding two screaming babies about to be placed in the outstretched, red hot arms and hands of the huge brass idol.  The image was 12 feet high and 24 feet wide.  I saw an aborted baby’s hand, blinked, and read the words, “Abortion is Child Sacrifice.”  Then, another larger-than-life portrait, this one depicting Satan. This image was 15 feet high.  My eyes looked away after a brief glance.  Meanwhile, my ears recoiled from the sound of babies crying from CBR’s speakers on both ends of the exhibit.

A short time later, CBR’s Maggie Egger interviewed me on camera.  She asked, “Is abortion child sacrifice?”  My answer flowed easily, recapping my personal history of rape and abortion, and for the first time making the connection, with my own words, that I had sacrificed my child in order to be healed from rape.  Believing a lie from my pastor who urged me to abort, I learned the hard way that abortion would not help me heal, but would compound the trauma and make healing infinitely more difficult.

In the days following the March, I rapidly struggled to make sense of it all.  Perhaps more so than most, because Facebook acquaintances demanded an explanation, one that I didn’t have at first. In the early hours of Sunday morning, God woke me with the thought, “You have now marched to the altar of Molech.”

After searching the Scripture for references to Molech, and finding an article by Gregg Cunningham on the topic of child sacrifice, I began to understand.  Had CBR not assaulted me, I doubt I would have ever done so otherwise.  Even with the fourteen revisions of Gregg’s article in my email archives, nothing had compelled me to dig further until the MFL.

As a result of marching to Molech, I now have a deeper understanding of abortion as Biblical child sacrifice.  I do not relish the path to this insight; I’m ashamed it took that much to make me want to really study Biblical child sacrifice for myself.  I previously knew about Biblical child sacrifice on an intellectual level.  Now my heart understood as well.

Consider this: Simon Sebag Montefiore, international best-selling author of the history text Jerusalem, says:

Most dreadful of all, … [Manasseh] encouraged the sacrifice of children at the roaster — the Tophet — in the Valley of Hinnom, south of the city [of Jerusalem].  Indeed “he made his own pass through the fire….”  Children were said to be taken there as priests beat drums to hide the shrieks of the victims from their parents.  (Vintage Books, 2011, p. 44)

Those of us who participated in the MFL this year have now seen Scripture revealed as plainly as possible.

God’s people in the Old Testament eventually tore down the altars to Molech at Tobeth (2 Kings 23:10).  It’s far past time for His people in the United States to do the same to our altars to Molech, most notably our largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.  Instead of trying to justify their existence through Planned Parenthood’s imaginary “good” services, it’s time to tear them down once and for all.  Eliminating over half a billion dollars in federal funding will be a great start towards that goal.

I’m told the MFL is supposed to be a celebration of life instead of a funeral for the lost.  The other side doesn’t fear our celebration of life.  They do fear our real mourning for the over 58 million lives lost to abortion, because that passion could mean their own demise.  Which view would motivate pro-life people more to make a difference in the coming year for life?

Nicole Cooley is a CBR Project Director and a FAB contributor.

a - Display - 475

How dare you compare abortion to the Holocaust?

Civil rights leaders agree: We can compare.

Civil rights leaders agree: We can compare.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

No Name:  How dare they compare abortion to the Holocaust. Nothing should every be compared to the Holocaust. … You can’t compare abortion to genocide.  They are two completely different things and trying to do so invalidates people who have survived through genocide or are going through it right now.  Also, the pictures that they put on display can be triggering for many students, faculty, and families who are touring the school.

CBR Response:  No Name, Martin Luther King, Jr. often compared racial injustice in America to the Holocaust.  Rev. Jesse Jackson later extended the comparison to abortion.  Both of them cited some of the same factors that we highlight in our display, including denial of personhood, dehumanization of the victims, etc.  They didn’t “invalidate” anybody when they made these comparisons.  They merely pointed out common themes.

BTW, this talk about “triggering” is nothing more than a plea for censorship.  You say that you think it’s OK for us to voice our opinions, but you think it goes too far when we provide evidence which proves our claim that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings.

Why do you want this evidence covered up?  How can it be that it is OK to decapitate and dismember little human beings, but not OK to show a picture of the result?

Soft Racism

This ain’t your grandma’s racism.

This ain’t your grandma’s racism.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Based on what I heard at Mizzou and elsewhere, I’m starting to realize there are two kinds of racism.

Hard racism is the obvious, in-your-face, “We hate black people.  Lynch them!  Enslave them!  ARGH!!!” kind of racism.  This racism is typical of cultural elites like Margret Sanger, KKK members, and neo-nazi skinheads.

But there is another kind of racism: soft racism.  Instead of being fueled by hatred, it seems to come from a pseudo-compassion for the plight of a lesser species.  It’s like the soft spot a pet owner might have for animals.

Mixed with the abortion/population control movement, soft racism has become more dangerous than the harder kind.  It lulls black people into a false sense of security, even as they annihilate their own race, one black baby at a time.  Meanwhile, soft-racist white people feel a sense of accomplishment, because it shows they “care” for the poor, downtrodden blacks.

Take a look at a few choice statements I’ve heard during our campus visits:

p My college roommate, in a gentle, sweet voice drenching with concern about the rate of illegitimate births in the black community, “They don’t know how to use birth control.”

In other words:  Blacks are apparently too stupid to figure out how to take a pill everyday.  (I’m not advocating usage of the pill nor premarital “safe” sex for any race, but the principle of taking a pill everyday is not that hard to wrap your mind around.)

p “I agree we shouldn’t kill children. But not everyone is equipped to take care of a baby.  Minorities need this option,” said a protester during Created Equal’s University of North Florida outreach.

In other words:  While killing children is bad, black people are so bad off that slaughtering their own children is the best option.

p Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, “When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. … You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”

Implication:  A double whammy.  Black people only know a life of poverty, but white people eat caviar at the country club.

p As reported in a recent story about microaggressions at Mizzou, white students at the University of Missouri said, “We don’t like that you’re tokenizing minorities!”  And, “You shouldn’t use minorities to further your agenda!”

In other words:  Blacks are too stupid to know their own minds, so their views must be assigned to them by their white benefactors.

p And finally, at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, a young white man repeatedly berated me for being token who had betrayed her own race.

In other words:  Blacks who don’t accept their assigned thoughts, words, and/or deeds must be put back in their places.

When I think about these comments, I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone.  It’s patronizing.  It’s insulting.  These folks are not entirely without concern and empathy, but it’s not the compassion you might feel it for someone you see as an equal.  Some of these folks seem to see us as lesser beings.  They take pride in shouldering the white man’s burden.

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

Might makes right

It is OK to kill, enslave, and destroy, because there aren’t enough people to stop us.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Science Student:  You can play with words all you want, but your side will ultimately lose this argument.  It’s inevitable as older generations of voters die-off.

CBR Response:  In other words, if society allows you to decapitate and dismember, then you win the argument and you are perfectly justified in committing the act.  Might makes right.  You say, “We can kill, so we will, and you will lose.”  Gee, where have we heard that before?

I cannot say which view will prevail.  For many years, the pro-slavery view prevailed.  That doesn’t mean it was morally acceptable to enslave another person.

Orlando

Lincoln Brandenburg, CBR Project Director, Georgia

Lincoln Brandenburg, CBR Project Director, Georgia

by Lincoln Brandenburg:

I’ve debated posting my thoughts on the Orlando terrorist attack.  Like many, I was outraged and deeply saddened on Sunday morning to hear of such a senseless, cowardly act of hate.

Like many, I have strong opinions on how we should respond to such disregard for the lives of others.  There are questions and exhortations to be had in terms of public policy, ideology and (not mentioned often enough) personal responsibility.

I may hash some of those opinions out in the days to come.  But in the meantime, I’ll leave it with this:

I don’t care if you’re different than me.  I don’t care if we disagree with each other’s lifestyles, politics or religion.  You are a valuable human being with dignity.  Your life matters, simply because you are a fellow human.  And I like to think that, given the chance, I would stand up for you if your life were in danger.

When Christ reiterated the greatest commandment, “Love your neighbor,” he was asked by a sly lawyer, “and who is my neighbor?”  Christ proceeded to tell the well-known story of the Good Samaritan.  In doing so, he placed two people who were culturally, racially and religiously very different side-by-side as neighbors.  The implications are obvious.

Sadly, Mr. Mateen was devoid of this kind of love for others.  Whether you want to blame radical Islam or guns for this horrible tragedy, one thing is clear: Mr. Mateen was filled with hate for others.  By all means, let’s hash out the tough issues.  But as we do so, let’s not stoop to the level of this coward.  Let’s advocate for our positions.  But let’s also listen to each other without demonizing each other.

Lincoln Brandenburg is a Project Director for CBR and regular contributor to FAB. 

Can telling the truth be talking trash?

The facts are dirty. The reality is filthy. But exposing the truth is not slinging mud.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Observer:  People on both sides of the issue spent half their time trash talking people who opposed them instead of keeping it to the issue.  The pro-lifers compared the pro-choicers to Germans who ignored the Holocaust, while pro-choicers compared pro-lifers to racists who fought to keep public schools segregated.  This constant mud-slinging contest is exactly why people don’t like talking about important issues.

CBR Response:   Observer, thanks for your comment.  We did not invent the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust and slavery.  Martin Luther King, Jr. often compared racial injustice in America to the Holocaust.  Rev. Jesse Jackson later extended the comparison to abortion.  Both of them cited some of the same factors that we highlight in our display, including denial of personhood, dehumanization of the victims, etc.  But it would be wrong to accuse them of “trash-talking”.

It isn’t trash-talking to point out that perpetrators of genocide always redefine personhood in terms that exclude the intended victim class.  Our Supreme Court declared preborn children to be non-persons in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, applying a developmental criteria (trimesters).  The Court did the same thing in 1857, by declaring Black men and women to be “subordinate and inferior” beings.  The Nazi court declared Jews to be non-persons in 1936.

Another common theme is the language used to dehumanize the intended victims.  For example, Nazis called their victims rats, pigs, vermin, and untermensch (subhuman).  We all know the language used to dehumanize Black men and women in this country.  So what do we call preborn children.  A wanted preborn child is called a “baby” — “look at the ultrasound of my baby” — but an unwanted preborn child is never a baby, but is often referred to as a “parasite”, “blob of cells”, “products of conception”, etc.

These are all true historical facts.  Stating facts is not mud-slinging.

Of course, these facts have relevance only if the preborn child is a living human being, but science tells us that the preborn child is both human (not a pig, cow, or horse) and alive (not dead, but growing).  So can anyone tell us why it OK to decapitate and dismember some human beings and not others?  And what criteria is appropriate to decide which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not?

Are aborting mothers like Nazis?

Source: www.theunchoice.com

Source: www.theunchoice.com

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Science Student:  Your “movement” implies that those who have had abortions are “murderers” and compares them to those who oversaw the holocaust [i.e. “Nazis”].

CBR Response:  We explicitly state that women who have had abortions may not be compared to Nazis.  In fact, aborting mothers are often more victim than perpetrator.  They’ve been lied to.  Many face enormous pressure and even threats of abandonment (or worse) by irresponsible or predatory males who should be supporting them.  Some “choice.”

We compare abortion to the Holocaust because in both cases, (1) the victims are denied rights of personhood, (2) perpetrators use dehumanizing terms to describe the people they intend to kill, etc.  But we also compare slavery to the Holocaust, for all the same reasons.  Does that mean that we believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and William Clark were as evil as Nazis, because they owned slaves?  Of course not.  These men are personal heroes of mine, but they were very wrong about a grave moral issue.  They grew up in a society in which slavery was an accepted part of daily life.

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

Not pro-life, but pro-birth

e5csmaller

.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Justin Barr:  I agree with not calling people against abortion pro-life because 9/10 time they really aren’t pro life, their pro birth and than screw you afterwards.

CBR Response:  Justin, that is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Name-calling and ad hominems are no substitutes for reasoned arguments.  If you have a reasonable argument that justifies decapitating and dismembering little human beings, we’d all love to hear it.  You could save us all a lot of trouble if you would make a coherent case.

Doesn’t know the definition of genocide

.

.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Thinking Logically:  [I] called you out on your shame tactics and blatant disregard for the emotional wellbeing of people who have gone through both the procedure in question … Can you perhaps choose another argument?  I think we all get that you are under the impression that abortion “decapitate and dismembers little human beings” or something along those lines. … Abortion isn’t genocide. Genocide is government sanctioned; there is propaganda (again government sanctioned and supported) demeaning the humanity of the targeted group, and military action is taken to eradicate the ENTIRE group.  Firstly, the government does not sanction abortion; there is massive controversy around the subject.  Secondly, you don’t turn on the television and see advertisements saying, “Eradicate the parasites known as the Unborn!” You don’t leave your house and walk down the street and see posters with demonizing pictures depicting “the unborn” and how we should “eradicate” them.  Thirdly, in saying that it is a genocide you are saying that we seek to eradicate ALL unborn children.  In what universe do you actually think that anyone would eradicate the potential life that fuels and sustains our population on earth?  Another thing is that genocide does rely on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other appeals to people.  Does that sound familiar?

CBR Response:  Thinking Logically, If abortion is just another medical procedure necessary for the well-being of women and society, then why would a picture of it shame anybody?

I repeat the fact that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings because that is an important fact that is the crux of the matter.  If you can offer any compelling evidence to the contrary, we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.  If you could provide a coherent argument for why it is OK to kill some human beings without justification, and give us some rational way to decide who may be killed and who must be protected, then we would gratefully thank you for the enlightenment and find something more productive to do.

Knowing that such simple evidence/arguments would get us to shut up and go away, why don’t you offer them?  You don’t offer such facts nor such arguments because they don’t exist.  To cover up for your lack of facts/arguments, you respond with ad hominem attacks and falsehoods (e.g., preborn humans are not human).

We will offer relevant facts and arguments as long as pro-aborts offer no coherent response.

Your comments are confused because you didn’t read the UN definition of genocide, nor did you read what we said about it.  We use the definition of genocide as stated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (11 December 1946): “Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, … and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. … The General Assembly, therefore, affirms that genocide is a crime under international law … whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds …” (source, accessed January 15, 2011)

Note that the action doesn’t have to be government-sponsored in order to be considered genocidal.  The genocide in Rwanda was not government sponsored.

You say that one of the defining characteristics of genocide is the demeaning of the humanity of the target victim group.  True.  Note that we often call a WANTED preborn child a baby, but an UNWANTED preborn child is never a baby, but is rather a fetus, embryo, products of conception, potential life, parasite, not a human, etc.  Can’t get much more demeaning than to call somebody a parasite.  The only difference between the baby and the parasite is that the one is wanted and the other is not. Personhood based on wantedness …  When have we seen that before?

You say that in order for it to be genocide, somebody has to be targeting an ENTIRE group.  With abortion, the entire group being targeted for destruction is UNWANTED, PREBORN children.  Not all preborn children, not all unwanted children, but all children who are both unwanted and preborn may be killed.

How can you say that the government doesn’t sanction abortion?  Haven’t you read Roe v. Wade?  Don’t you know that the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government every year?

You said that genocide depends on mob-mentality, bandwagoning, and most other [fallacious?] appeals to people.  You asked if such a characterization sounded familiar.  Yes, it does.

Sibling rivalry and abortion

Abortion is making sibling rivalry reach a level of Biblical proportions

My brother’s death leaves more for me.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

Sibling rivalry.  It happens.  You can even say it’s natural.  But with abortion, it can be dark and disturbing.

“If my mom didn’t have an abortion, I wouldn’t be here today!”  We hear it all the time.  Okie from Georgia Southern U said that because his father coerced the abortion of two older siblings, he was able to raise successful, productive sons later on, of which Okie was one.  In other words, “I’m glad my big brother is dead.  If he had lived, things sure would be different for me!”  Kill or be killed.  Dog eat dog.

As the sister of a dead brother (not because of abortion), this is disturbing to my very core.  I can’t imagine being grateful he’s gone because his death makes my life somehow “better.”  Statements like that ring cold and cruel in my ears.

There’s even a children’s book called Sister Apple, Sister Pig, written to help children rejoice over their sibling’s abortions.  It’s about a boy who is looking for his sister in various places at his family’s farm.  His sister was aborted, and according to the boy’s father,

“…You have some good reasons to not have a sister right here, right now.  Maybe you will have another sister when there is more time, and there is more money.”

See kids, if your sibling hadn’t been murdered, there wouldn’t be enough time and money for you!  In fact, that is the exact conclusion the young boy comes to in the story.  He says,

“I’m not sad that my sister is a ghost!  If you kept my sister, you would be tired, and sad, and mad! … Because we would be wild and loud and sometimes we would fight.  Mama might be scared that she could not buy enough food for us.  Mama might not have enough time to read to me, to paint with me, to play with me, to talk with me … Sister is a happy ghost!”

I’m starting to realize that this is a vital survival mechanism.  How can a child process the news that his own mother or father murdered his own brother or sister, without going completely insane?

Sister Apple, Sister Pig isn’t a story about a boy who has come to healthy acceptance of his late sister’s death.  This is a story about a little boy who rationalizes his sister’s murder to avoid completely losing his mind.  The same can be said of the people we have met, on campus and elsewhere.  When a parent turns against a child, it’s only natural for the remaining children to turn against the victim as well.  This protects him from the shattering effects of cognitive dissonance.  You can’t be pro-slaughtered-baby and pro-slaughtering-parent at the same time.  This is especially true when you are related to both.

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

Bad comparison?

Will to Power

Holocaust = a sovereign nation exercising its religious and racial “choice,” or “will to power,” as Hitler called it.

by Fletcher Armstrong

Continuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Man:  You’re comparing a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a potential child to term (and dramatically change her life, cause unforeseen health issues, potentially lead to a bad life for a child, etc) to an event which imprisoned/killed millions of [already born] people and caused the death of countless other via a global war?

CBR Response:  We are comparing killing human beings who are little with killing human beings for any number of other arbitrary reasons.

We are comparing the dehumanization of unwanted preborn children with the dehumanization of other people groups singled out for destruction.  For example, you claim that the preborn child is only a “potential” child, because you want to kill him or her.  Similarly, Nazis said that their intended victims were “untermensch” (subhuman).  Where does that end?  Why not kill infants because they are only “potential” teenagers?

If you think somebody is going to have a bad life, you can kill that person?  Where does that stop?  We all know many people who came from difficult life circumstances; do you think they should be dead?  How can the potential for future difficult life circumstances be used to justify killing anybody?

You mentioned the process of birth?  How does that change anything about that baby?  What is essentially different about a baby 10 minutes before birth and that same baby 10 minutes after?  Why do you believe it is OK to decapitate and dismember the one and not the other?

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

Perpetrators of genocide almost always discount the humanity of their victims.

Weird for a Christian to cite science?

Science and Christianity CoexistContinuing our See you in the funny papers series (explanation), this one from the Grand Valley State University Lanthorn.

Science Student:  Given that you’re pro-life, I’m assuming that you’re also religious — Weird to see you attempting to cite “science” for something in that context.

CBR Response:  Famous scientists who believed in God: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and many, many others.

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prizes Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.  Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, and 62% in Medicine. (source)

Science is a way of discovering truth about the natural world.  Some scientists claim that all phenomena have a naturalistic explanation, but that is a statement of philosophy, not a conclusion of science.

Science can only tell us that the preborn child is both human and alive from the moment of conception.  Science cannot tell us whether killing humans is immoral or not, nor can science tell us which human beings may be decapitated and dismembered and which may not.

Is it permissible for Christians to break rules in order to save lives?

Diana Jeminez

Diana Jeminez broke the rules to display this abortion victim photo at Biola University.  A baby was saved and Biola later apologized for their abusive treatment of her.

In recent years, CBR has encouraged students at Christian universities to display abortion victim photos, in spite of demands by university administrators that these images be covered up.  This has included Biola University and Liberty University, but CBR is committed to growing this list.

As Christians, we are commanded to obey those in authority over us (Hebrews 13:17, Romans 13:1), presumably even if, in our opinion, the authorities are in the wrong.  So, therefore, we must ask the question:  Is it permissible for Christians to break rules in order to save lives?

In the case of rules which prohibit students from saving the lives of children on Christian university campuses, the answer has to be an emphatic “Yes!”

We can start with Mark 3:4.  Jesus asked the religious authorities, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”  When babies are dying all around us, when Liberty University parking stickers are seen at nearby abortion mill parking lots on a regular basis, when 1 in 5 women who aborts her child identifies her as a born-again or evangelical Christian, and when the Church leaders are trained to believe that abortion is somebody else’s problem, then we think it’s fair to ask the question, “Which is lawful at Liberty University (or Biola, or wherever), to do good or evil, to save life or to kill?”

And no student has any Biblical obligation to obey school rules which conflict with God’s laws.    God’s law regarding injustice mandates that we intervene in defense of its victims (Isaiah 59:15-16, Proverbs 24:11-12).  Ephesians 5:11 proscribes intervention by “exposing” the deeds of darkness, not covering up those deeds.

CBR has seen countless pregnant students change their minds about killing their children after seeing abortion photos on public university campuses.  Christian university administrations, however, have spent more time and energy stopping the display of abortion imagery than they have ever spent trying to stop abortion.  Publicly, these universities profess to be pro-life.  Christians are scandalized to learn that the unwritten rules at these Christian universities actually censor pro-life speech on their own campuses.  That is an inconsistency that deserves to be exposed and resolved.

Our experience at Biola has been very instructive.  Biola’s treatment of Diana Jimenez can only be described as abusive, even after she had graduated.  Biola has since apologized to Diana, but Biola’s claims that CBR’s video was “edited” and had “given a false impression” can rightly be compared with Planned Parenthood’s response to the CMP videos released in 2015.

In the face of all of this, God has actually used Diana’s courage to save at least one baby’s life.  The following message was posted online:

There are a lot of people bashing Diana right now but first hand I can tell you she did what she was told to do.  I am 20.  A student of Biola and always claimed to be pro-life.  I thought that until I got a positive pregnancy test.  This came after a night of partying just outside the campus and had a one night stand with a youth pastor in training.  I was going to go to Planned Parenthood that day and as I walked through campus her signs made me realize there is a human life in my womb ….  In that moment I went to my dorm room got on my knees and asked that I would have the strength to be my baby’s mom.  STOP saying she didn’t follow her stupid rules.  God came through for me because of her.  (emphasis added)

Matthew 23:23 says, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill and cumin.  But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness.”  We don’t want to make that mistake.