Every Life Is Beautiful

This is a story that needs to be told. My wife and I recently watched an advance copy of October Baby and we were really impressed. This is a powerful film that is both honest and redemptive. I encourage you to take your youth groups to go see it and spread the word on Facebook and Twitter. It opens friday March 23rd.

Find where it is playing near you...

Official Movie Website

Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow

TC | Web

TC | Twitter

TC | Facebook

TC | Podcast

TC | Jonathan Morrow's Books

Tim Tebow and his controversial pro-life super bowl ad?

From LTI Blog... "Tim Tebow and his mother Pam in conjunction with private donors and Focus on the Family have legally purchased commercial air time during the Super Bowl to tell the story of how his mother was advised to abort him over medical concerns. Specifically, Pam had taken a high dose of antibiotics as part of treatment for amoebic dysentery and she was advised to terminate his life. The content of the ad has been reviewed and approved by the network as acceptable. The theme of the brief spot is “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” And according to abortion supporters, supposedly obsessed with freedom and choice, you should not be allowed to see this spot.

Odd isn't it? Freedom, they cry! Liberty and equality for all and don't you attempt to force your view of morality on others. And yet it is that very same group that is now demanding that CBS not allow this perfectly legal and approved spot to air...." (More)


"CBS Tuesday (Jan. 26) stood behind its decision to take a Super Bowl ad from Focus on the Family that has drawn fire from reproductive choice organizations...." (more)

Only one issue in the pro life / pro choice debate. The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It's not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn? (Great Article)

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

ThinkChristianly.org
Think Christianly on Twitter
Welcome to College

thinkChristianly Podcast

Only One Issue in the Pro-Life Debate

If you want to make a clear and compelling philosophical and scientific case for the pro-life position, then look no further than the website case fore life. Here is a brief sampling of what you can expect from Scott Klusendorf...

"The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It's not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question.

What is the Unborn?
Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own intrinsic worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled. As Gregory Koukl points out, "If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate." (Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7)

This is not to say that abortion is easy for most women. To the contrary, a decision to have one may be psychologically complex and perhaps even agonizing for some. But the topic today is not psychology, but morality: Can we know what's right even if our emotions are conflicted?

Everyone agrees that abortion kills something that's alive. After all, dead things don't grow! But whether it's right to take the life of any living being depends entirely on the question: What kind of being is it?" (for more click here)

This is the best book on the topic.


For other think Christianly Posts on this topic, click here.

ThinkChristianly.org
Think Christianly on Twitter
Welcome to College

thinkChristianly Podcast

Senators Push for Amendment to Restrict Funding for Abortion Coverage in Bill

Abortion is again coming to the forefront in the health care debate. So how should the pro-life issue be discussed? See article here...

The Case for Life Website

First, there are the moral, philosophical, and scientific issues...and the best book on the topic is The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf.



Then there are the Political and Legal issues...and the two best are Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by Francis Beckwith & Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square by Clarke Forsythe.

ThinkChristianly.org
Think Christianly on Twitter
Welcome to College

thinkChristianly Podcast

Only One Issue and Making the Case for Life

If you want to make a clear and compelling philosophical and scientific case for the pro-life position, then look no further than the website case fore life. Here is a brief sampling of what you can expect from Scott Klusendorf...

"The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It's not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question.

What is the Unborn?
Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own intrinsic worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled. As Gregory Koukl points out, "If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate." (Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7)

This is not to say that abortion is easy for most women. To the contrary, a decision to have one may be psychologically complex and perhaps even agonizing for some. But the topic today is not psychology, but morality: Can we know what's right even if our emotions are conflicted?

Everyone agrees that abortion kills something that's alive. After all, dead things don't grow! But whether it's right to take the life of any living being depends entirely on the question: What kind of being is it?" (for more click here)

This is the best book on the topic.

ThinkChristianly.org
Think Christianly on Twitter
Welcome to College

thinkChristianly Podcast

How to Have Good Spiritual Conversations and Share Your Faith

I came across a 5 minute audio clip from Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason that was particularly fascinating and instructive. Most of us have had conversations with people who raise questions against a view we hold (like Christianity) but then keep "moving the goal line" as to what counts as a satisfying answer.

In this case, Greg is interacting with a lady who calls into the radio show. Give it a listen, and watch how he guides the conversation and most importantly does not get defensive (when he probably felt tempted to).

Click here to listen.



To learn more about how to navigate spiritual conversations, see Greg's book, Tactics.

thinkChristianly Podcast

ThinkChristianly.org
Welcome to College

Democrats introduce bill to legalize infanticide up to one year

(HT - Wintery Knight) this is a very helpful post on the Abortion issue....all from Wintery Knight - (clip) Kathy Ireland artfully defends Pro -Life Position

**Correction** UPDATE: Sorry, the headline from before should read that infanticide up to one year will be reduced to a felony, not legalized outright! My mistake! (from Wintery Knight)


Democrats introduce bill to legalize infanticide up to one year

A post at Gateway Pundit, sent to me by the greatest commenter in the blogosphere, ECM.
Gateway Pundit has a link to the bill, but Cassy Fiano has a lot more.
Here’s a bit about the bill:

It defines infanticide as:

A person commits an offense if the person wilfully by an act or omission causes the death of a child to whom the person gave birth within the 12-month period preceding the child’s deathThe bill says that infanticide should not be prosecuted as murder, though, as long as:
… at the time of the act or omission, the person’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth.Infanticide would become a felony, punishable by no more than two years in prison, with a minimum of 180 days, and/or a fine of no more than $10,000.

We need to start getting serious about defending the pro-life view using facts and arguments. Here’s some stuff to get you started. Disagreeing with people is fun once you take time to learn your stuff in detail.

Audio: Scott Klusendorf’s 35-minute case for the pro-life position
Audio: A 55-minute discussion featuring two great pro-life debaters, Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf
My own religion-free case for the pro-life position in plain English
A comparison of embryonic and adult stem cell research
Video: Cute 12-year old girl makes the pro-life case in a short speech

Adult Stem Cells the Answer? On Oprah? Yes....

There has been a lot of debate on the need for embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells. But the reality is, embryonic stem cells are treating "zero" diseases while adult stem cells are treating around 90.

But don't take my word for it....let the Oprah show confirm that for you (wow did I just say that???)

Watch this clip, it is 3:43

Adult stem cells provide real hope to those who struggle with Parkinson's disease. Watch the clip to learn why.

(HT - STR Blog)

Staring into the Abyss: Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous.

I came across an interesting article the other day by Dinesh D'Souza

here is an excerpt:

"I write this fresh from debating bioethicist Peter Singer on "Can we be moral without God?" at Singer's home campus, Princeton University. Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn't have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born."

His conclusion is perceptive as well...

"Some of Singer's critics have called him a Nazi and compared his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating those perceived as unwanted and unfit. A careful reading of his work, however, shows that Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by private individuals like you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide."

"Why haven't the atheists embraced Peter Singer? I suspect it is because they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism. What they haven't considered, however, is whether Singer, virtually alone among their numbers, is uncompromisingly working out the implications of living in a truly secular society, one completely purged of Christian and transcendental foundations. In Singer, we may be witnessing someone both horrifying and yet somehow refreshing: an intellectually honest atheist."

(HT - STR)

Morally Unserious in the Extreme

I came across this article from our friends at Stand to Reason, and it is worth a read. It is an illuminating analysis of President Obama's embryonic stem cell research policies and moral reasoning (or lack thereof) by someone who is non-religious.

Morally Unserious in the Extreme By Charles Krauthammer

What I learned from a twelve year old...

I recently came across a story of a 7th grade speech by Lia. I then discovered the link on You Tube to her actual speech. It is 5 minutes and is worth watching for several reasons:

1. People need to stop underestimating and under challenging young people
2. Her ability to communicate, understand and interact with the issues was very impressive
3. She did not appeal to the Bible to settle the question (like a trump card our culture does not accept)
4. She was winsome and earned the respect from her peers and judges
5. She did all this by taking one of the most contentious issues of our day head on, abortion.

After watching this, ask yourself if you could have given that 7th grade speech?



To further equip yourself on this issue, see one of my recent posts.

Infertility Technology Run Amok: Women Not Meant to Carry ‘Litters’ of Children

In an effort to think Christianly about all of life I wanted to share some further reflections on reproductive technology. The story of the Octuplets is still in the news and people are trying to understand what happened, how it happened, and should it have been allowed to happen.

Here is an excellent short article commenting on the latest in this story: Infertility Technology Run Amok: Women Not Meant to Carry ‘Litters’ of Children by Dr. Scott Rae.

Does God care who wins the Super Bowl?

ah...the big questions in life. As we get ready for another Super Bowl and millions prepare nachos and favorite beverages, an interesting article came out today.

Does God care who wins the Super Bowl?

Well does He? The answer to that question is complex--providence, prayer, and personal growth are all involved in the answer. What do you think?

Well here is at least one Ad you won't be seeing during the Superbowl. NBC refused to show it, because "it was a political or issue ad." Now they are certainly free to do so and I am not arguing there is some huge conspiracy here or that we should boycott all media, but watch this 30 second ad and decide for yourself...given the political season we just endured--being bombarded with partisan ads--is this ad out of bounds?

The Case for Life, Roe, Wade, Bush, Obama...and Us

Few topics can cause more intense emotions (on both sides) than the ‘pro-life / pro-choice’ debate. As a result, it can become easy to hold a position without thinking through that position very carefully. We simply have an emotional reaction, one way or the other, and then adopt that as our default.

Regardless of the view that one holds, if we are to make progress in this area of moral concern, then we must find common ground where it exists and learn to treat others with respect—even though we may passionately disagree at the end of the day. We do this because truth matters and truth doesn’t evaporate simply because people disagree.

Before exploring the issues, I want to acknowledge that there are many deeply personal and social issues wrapped up in the topic of abortion. My intention is not to dismiss or minimize the pain, shame, or regret that women and men feel when the topic of abortion is raised. So as we look objectively at the moral status of the unborn, please remember that in Christ there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and that God is in the business of redeeming and healing broken and wounded people—and all of us are in need of that.

What a difference a day makes. In one day, the tone and policy from the Whitehouse changed considerably concerning unborn human persons.



"All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us....The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America..."

enter President Obama...

"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services....On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere."

Today we learned that President Obama has reversed the The Mexico City Policy - "Specifically, the policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion." In other words, American taxpayers will now have our taxes pay for abortions globally, in the name of "family planning."

The abortion rights issue has been all over the blogosphere. and there have been some really good posts. The bottom line is we cannot remain silent, we must remain civil, and we must learn how to make our case for life in langauge our culture can understand one conversation at a time? Are you prepared? Here is a case you can make in ten seconds. Here You can do it in 5 minutes.

I want to highly recomed the book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture by Scott Klusendorf. If you read just one book, read this one.

Other helpful resources and blogs.

from Stand to Reason:

36 Years Since Roe v. Wade
Here are some important articles to equip you to change minds as the legal protections for the unborn, such as they are, begin to crumble as President Obama signs executive orders today:
The always excellent Robert George
A way to get involved
STR's library of pro-life persuasion

from Feminists for Life: It is very important to remember that many women are against abortion. There is some really good thinking--from women's persepctives--at this site. Here is a great PDF handout.

from Between two Worlds:

The Case for Life Around the Web

Woman given windpipe created in laboratory (with adult stem cells)

I came across an article this morning about the impact 'adult' (as opposed to embryonic) stem cells can have and is having:

Doctors have given a woman a new windpipe with tissue engineered from her own stem cells in what experts have hailed as a "milestone in medicine."

Claudia Castillo, 30, suffered from tuberculosis for years.

The breakthrough allowed Claudia Castillo, 30, to receive a new section of trachea -- an airway essential for breathing -- without the risk that her body would reject the transplant.

Castillo was given the stem cell surgery, the controversial branch of medicine that some say could lead to human cloning, after suffering a severe lung collapse. (Read whole article)

Now a very important detail is left undefined in the initial part of the article, it isn't just stem cells, but adult stem cells. So no human life was destroyed in this process. They mention that half-way through. This is important because given the way this discussion has been framed in the public square, people hear stem cells and associate that with embryonic stem cells.

Martin Birchall, professor of surgery at the University of Bristol, who was part of the team that did the operation, notes that "Surgeons can now start to see and understand the very real potential for adult stem cells and tissue engineering to radically improve their ability to treat patients with serious diseases."

As we walk further as a society into the "Biotech" century, we need to think about what we do and how we do it when it comes human persons.

Two great resources are the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Biotechnology and the Human Good by leading ethicists by Georgetown University Press.

(Description of book): Some of humankind's greatest tools have been forged in the research laboratory. Who could argue that medical advances like antibiotics, blood transfusions, and pacemakers have not improved the quality of people's lives? But with each new technological breakthrough there comes an array of consequences, at once predicted and unpredictable, beneficial and hazardous. Outcry over recent developments in the reproductive and genetic sciences has revealed deep fissures in society's perception of biotechnical progress. Many are concerned that reckless technological development, driven by consumerist impulses and greedy entrepreneurialism, has the potential to radically shift the human condition - and not for the greater good. "Biotechnology and the Human Good" builds a case for a stewardship deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian theism to responsibly interpret and assess new technologies in a way that answers this concern. The authors jointly recognize humans not as autonomous beings but as ones accountable to each other, to the world they live in, and to God. They argue that to question and critique how fields like cybernetics, nanotechnology, and genetics might affect our future is not anti-science, anti-industry, or anti-progress, but rather a way to promote human flourishing, common sense, and good stewardship. A synthetic work drawing on the thought of a physician, ethicists, and a theologian, "Biotechnology and the Human Good" reminds us that although technology is a powerful and often awe-inspiring tool, it is what lies in the heart and soul of who wields this tool that truly makes the difference in our world.

SLED: Defend the Unborn with Scott Klusendorf

Making a clear argument in defense of the unborn using S.L.E.D. For more visit, http://www.prolifetraining.com/

Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George

Dr. Robert George, professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, analyzes Senator Obama's legislative positions on abortion and the unborn:

Conclusion: "Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket."

For the rest of the compelling article, click here.

I post this to remove all doubt about Obama's stance on pro-life issues.

Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig weighs in on “Abortion and Presidential Politics”

Each week William Lane Craig, of Reasonable Faith, answers tough questions. Below is a good one to think through (visit www.reasonablefaith.org for more great resources). Regardless of where you land on whether this issue is decisive for who you vote for, pay special attention to the reasoning of his argument - one does not need to appeal to the Bible to argue for the Pro-Life Position. Enjoy.

Question: Since the election is nearing—I have a question concerning Abortion—most of my family is catholic—we all know the stance on Abortion by the Church as well as the Bible for Protestants—how does someone support the candidates that are pro choice? This drives me nuts when analyzing this situation; I know this is only one issue but it is such a huge issue! I appreciate your comments since i value your judgement so much.
Garry


Dr. Craig responds:

In order to answer your question, Garry, we first need to determine our view of the ethics of abortion on demand. It seems to me that amidst all the arguments pro and con about the abortion issue, there are two central questions which are determinative:

(1) Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value?
(2) Is the developing fetus a human being?

Think about that first question: Do human beings have intrinsic moral value? Something has intrinsic value if it is an end in itself, rather than a means to some end. Things which are valuable merely as means to some end have only extrinsic value. For example, money has no intrinsic value, in and of itself. Rather it has extrinsic value insofar as it's a useful means of commerce for human beings and so is valuable to us for the ends it helps us achieve. But in and of itself it's intrinsically worthless. It's just paper.

Now the question is, are human beings like that? Or are they intrinsically valuable? I'm certain that most people, once they think about it, recognize that human beings are intrinsically valuable. People aren't just valuable as means to some end; rather people are ends in themselves. That's why, as Augustine said, we should love people and use things, not vice versa. Those who use people and love things are doing something profoundly immoral because they are not recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of other persons, who are not mere things to be used.

The international community recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings in its declaration on human rights. The notion that people have inherent rights just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, regardless of their race, class, religion, caste, or station in life, is based in the inherent moral value of human beings. This truth is recognized as well in our Declaration of Independence, where it affirms that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Most of us, when we reflect upon it, would come to a similar conclusion: Yes, human beings do possess intrinsic moral value.

Now what that implies is that if the developing fetus is a human being, then he or she is endowed with intrinsic moral worth and therefore possesses inherent human rights, including the right to life. Abortion would be a form of homicide, and against such attacks the innocent and defenseless fetus would have every right to the protection of the law.

So we come to the second question we must address: Is the developing fetus a human being? Here it seems to me that it is virtually undeniable scientifically and medically that the fetus is at every stage of its development a human being. After all, the fetus is not canine, or feline, or bovine; it is a human fetus. From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species.

Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed.

Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or a Y chromosome from the sperm. The later development of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality which has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits like body type, eye and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth are all determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception.

Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no non-arbitrary breaking point before which you can say the fetus is not human, but after which he or she is. The traditional division of pregnancy into three trimesters has no scientific or medical basis: it is a purely arbitrary reckoning device for the sake of convenience. It's probably due to the fact that pregnancy lasts nine months. If human beings had a gestation time of 8 months, nobody would talk about trimesters. We'd probably divide it into quarters. The fact is that any attempt to draw a line and say "not human before this point, but human afterwards" is wholly arbitrary and without biological foundation.

Thus, as I say, it seems to me virtually undeniable that the fetus — which is just Latin for "little one" —is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether one is a "little one," a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development. Those who deny the little one in the womb is a human being typically confuse being human with being at some later stage of development. For example, some abortion rights advocates say that because an embryo is not a baby, it's not a human being, and therefore abortion is morally acceptable.

This argument seems to me completely fallacious. On this reasoning, we could with equal justice say that because a child is not an adult, he is not a human being; or because a baby is not a child, he is not a human being. Of course, an embryo is not a baby, but that doesn't mean that an embryo is not a human being. All of these are the various stages in a human being's development, and it is arbitrary to cut off one stage and say that because it is not a later stage, it is not a human being.

Moreover, it is simply false that most abortions are performed on embryos. By the time most women realize that they are pregnant (about two months after conceiving), the embryo has already become a fetus, a "little one". We're not dealing at this point with a cluster of cells, but with—the word is unavoidable—a baby, a very tiny baby with a face and features, with little arms and legs, with tiny feet and hands. All the organs of the body are already present, and the muscle and circulatory systems are complete. Even brain wave activity is present. By the twelfth week, his fingers and toes are fully developed, complete with delicate fingerprints and with little fingernails and toenails forming. The baby is already quite mobile, kicking and moving about, clenching and opening his little fists and curling his toes. Behind his closed eyelids his eyes are almost fully developed. Incredibly, already at this point, the baby's facial features begin to resemble those of his parents!

In utero photographs of these little ones have disclosed to us what exquisitely beautiful and delicate marvels of creation they are. One physician describes his experience of seeing first hand one of these eight-week-old little ones:

Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the end of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc.

No one who has seen photographs of infants in the womb between 8-12 weeks old can honestly deny that here we have a human baby.

The vast majority of abortions occur at this time, between the tenth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy and are thus clearly destroying a human baby. I won't even speak of the horror of second and third trimester abortions, 150,000 of which occur annually in the U.S. alone, or of partial birth abortions in which a baby is actually partially delivered before it is brutally killed. Make no mistake about it: abortion is killing babies. The only way this can go on is because these unlucky little ones are normally hidden from view. As my former pastor once said, "If wombs had windows, there would be no abortions."

The fact is that from conception to old age we have the various stages of development in the life of a human being. It seems to me therefore that the medical and scientific facts make it virtually undeniable that the developing fetus is a human being.

If we thus answer "Yes" to both of the questions we've set ourselves, it follows that abortion on demand is a moral outrage, the destruction of an innocent and defenseless human life. Now you'll notice that I've not appealed at any point to the Bible in all this. That's because, contrary to popular impression, abortion is not, as such, a religious question. The first question we asked is philosophical: do human beings posses intrinsic moral value? The second question is scientific and medical: is the developing fetus a human being? Neither of these is a religious question.
Given our answers to the two questions above, it follows that abortion on demand is the transcendent moral issue of our time. Since the legalization of abortion on demand in 1973, we have witnessed an American Holocaust which has claimed the lives of tens of millions of innocent human beings. Other issues pale in comparison to this one. While we should care about a candidate's stand on other important domestic and foreign policies, still, where there are pro-life candidates in the field, the sine qua non for our voting for any candidate must be his championing the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand.

*Coming soon on think Christianly, Will we see Gandhi in heaven?

McCain, Obama in sharp contrast on abortion - High court vacancies will create opportunities for president to alter policy

As the rhetoric reaches fever pitch, the stakes have never been higher for the innocents--precious unborn human children (that picture is from an ultrasound of an 8 week old). And the next president will influence the next generation by appointing supreme court justices.

Will the 1.2 million - yes that was million - abortions performed each year go up or down? (For perspective, the state of Montana boasts a population of 945,000). Will the brutal practice of partial birth abortion--if you have never learned or seen what this involves--or an abortion procedure actually does-- Click Here. Warning these are disturbing images and they will and should disturb you because you are looking at a human life. Most Americans do not know which is why they seem indifferent. My goal is not to minimize the pain or guilt that those who have had abortions experience; but someone has to speak up for the lives of these little ones. Yes there is grace and forgivness, but choices have consequences.

Trust me, you will never think of the "abortion rights" (doesn't that sound noble?) debate quite the same once you have an image to go with an idea. I especially appeal to college students reading this blog because you may not know how hideous this procedure is because it gets covered over by the rhetoric of choice and rights. Reality has a way of changing our minds.

Here is an MSNBC article (not a bastion of conservatism by any stretch on how STARK the contrast is between these two candidates--Obama and McCain). Regardless of where you come down on "Christians being one issue voters", anyone who is pro-life must recognize that this election cycle is different. Real and lasting policy will be solidified for years to come. That is simply a fact.

Yes, I know 700 billion dollars for a bailout is a huge number, but so is 1.2 million lives. And you ask any parent--or one desiring to be a parent--which one is more valuable.

"The facts of science are clear: from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Therefore, every "successful" abortion ends the life of a living human being."

To learn more about understanding and making the case for the pro-life position, Click Here.
Also, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively
and, Common Ground Without Compromise

Comparing the Platforms - Democrats and Republicans

Here is the tale of the tape. The presidential race is heating up - Vice Presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin was dynamic and compelling in her speech at the RNC.

So what is the difference between the parties? Christianity Today has put them side by side for you to investigate. They report...you decide ;)

Comparing the Platforms