Abort73.COM

June 2, 2010

What’s up with Pastor Alvin’s T-shirts?

My daily ensemble usually incorporates a T-shirt from Abort73.com a pro-life website that has gained quite a following. Abort73 has even been featured in a Sermon by John Piper. It is the best pro-life web site out there!

I love Abort73 for a few reasons. The web site is very informative with articles and videos to educate those ignorant of what abortion really is-MURDER! Also I appreciate that Abort73 is operated by believers. Mike Spielman, the founder and Executive Director of Abort73 loves the Lord and understands that talking to people about abortion effectively must include the gospel. Which is another reason why I love wearing Abort73 t-shirts. I get into so many conversations with people about what Abort73 is and those conversations flow into the gospel so smoothly. Check out Abort73.com, buy some Abort73/gear, pray for their work, maybe even consider donating to this worthy cause and ministry. Follow this Abort73vid link to watch a very graphic but informative video.
Blessings, Alvin

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Abort73.COM”

  1. Daniel said

    Oh, so abortion is murder huh? What about whacking a doctor during a church service in Kansas? Is that murder too? Or are you one of these fundy nuts that thinks that’s ok for the guy to do because the doctor was doing third trimester abortions? I am sorry, but my opinion is that it is the woman’s choice, whether it is murder or not, and whether it is so-called Scriptural or not, because I do not want government sticking its nose into this area of peoples lives. In case you people failed to realize, uh, the world is SERIOUSLY overpopulated, first of all. Secondly, before Roe v. Wade in 1973, women had abortions anyway. If it is overturned, they will still have them. They will just go back to the unsafe and unsanitary methods of before. Oh, like coathangers, and where people like EMTs did them, or veternarians did them. Stuff like that. Or, if you are a rich woman, you will still be able to fly to a foreign country and get the procedure. Overturning Roe v. Wade would just make things unsafe and available only to the wealthy. Oh wait, that’s what most Jesus thumping fundies in this country want. Health care and a decent life only for the rich, and a crap life with nothing for everyone else. Hmmmmmm, why is it that so-called Christians care so much about the unborn, but don’t care too much about little children in households where there is child abuse or where the kids are not adequately fed or clothed? Or where the kids are neglected? I guess Christianity maybe just stays at home, huh?

    • bethelgrace said

      Wow. Well there is a lot here to answer and address so I have broken your post up into bullet points to address each one. Thanks for your post and interest in Cristocentric.
      • Oh, so abortion is murder huh? Yes. The right to not be killed supersedes the right to not be pregnant. 6th Commandment.
      • What about whacking a doctor during a church service in Kansas? Is that murder too? Yes.
      • Or are you one of these fundy nuts that thinks that’s ok for the guy to do because the doctor was doing third trimester abortions? 1st, 2nd or 3rd, it’s murder. So is killing a doctor that does them. Deuteronomy 32:35 (ESV) Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’
      • I am sorry, but my opinion is that it is the woman’s choice, finish the sentence. A woman’s choice to… KILL their unborn child!
      • whether it is murder or not, and whether it is so-called Scriptural or not, because I do not want government sticking its nose into this area of peoples lives. What about the babies lives? Government should be protecting the weak and setting in place laws to prevent murder.
      • In case you people failed to realize, uh, the world is SERIOUSLY overpopulated, first of all. Murder is not the answer. Abortion is the world’s reaction to the consequences of their actions. They want to have unprotected sex without the consequences. Abortion is one of the most self-centered acts known to man. “I want to live my life free from the natural consequences of my actions (having and raising a baby) so instead I will kill my unborn child. I will numb my conscience and call it a procedure. I will believe the lie that “it” isn’t a human life.”
      • Secondly, before Roe v. Wade in 1973, women had abortions anyway. Yep. It was murder then too.
      • If it is overturned, they will still have them. Most likely. However, it will still be murder.
      • They will just go back to the unsafe and unsanitary methods of before. Oh, like coathangers, and where people like EMTs did them, or veternarians did them. Stuff like that. Or, if you are a rich woman, you will still be able to fly to a foreign country and get the procedure. Overturning Roe v. Wade would just make things unsafe and available only to the wealthy.
      I’m not interested in making it convenient and “safe” for people to murder. Just because people will do foolish things should not compel the government to change the law to accommodate murder. Yes, wealthy people often turn to their resources instead of God for life’s problems. That’s why Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into heaven. Mark 10:25.
      These last ones I’m not going to touch. Now we’re getting into politics and that’s not where I want to focus my efforts.
      • Oh wait, that’s what most Jesus thumping fundies in this country want. Health care and a decent life only for the rich, and a crap life with nothing for everyone else. Hmmmmmm, why is it that so-called Christians care so much about the unborn, but don’t care too much about little children in households where there is child abuse or where the kids are not adequately fed or clothed? Or where the kids are neglected? I guess Christianity maybe just stays at home, huh?
      Politically speaking, abortion is an issue that involves competing rights. On the one hand, you have the mother’s right not to be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby’s right not to be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would, in essence, elevate the rights of the unborn over and above those of the mother. “How can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?”, they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion wouldn’t be giving unborn children more rights, it would simply gain for them the one most fundamental right that no one can live without, the right to life.
      If a baby is not to be aborted, then the pregnant mother must remain pregnant. This will also require of her sickness, fatigue, reduced mobility, an enlarged body, and a new wardrobe. Fortunately, it is not a permanent condition. On the flip side, for a pregnant woman not to be pregnant, her child must be killed (unless she is past her 21st week of pregnancy, in which case the baby may well survive outside the womb). Abortion costs the unborn child his or her very life and it is a thoroughly permanent condition. This is what’s at stake, both for the child and for the mother. It is not an issue of who is more important, but rather who has more on the line.
      Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the law exists to protect the more fundamental right. We see this all the time. For example, if a car is driving down a street while someone is crossing that street, the law requires the driver of the car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn’t stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time. The autonomy of the driver must be temporarily suspended to protect the life of the pedestrian. Though a pregnant woman gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, she gives up far less than the baby, who would otherwise be killed.
      At a basic level, the driver/pedestrian example helps illustrate how the law should respond when the rights of individuals conflict with each other. Namely, the less fundamental rights must yield to the more fundamental rights. There are still those who maintain, however, that the mother’s right to not be pregnant, is more fundamental than her child’s right to not be killed.
      In 1971, Judith Jarvis, an American moral philosopher and abortion advocate, published what some call “the most widely reprinted essay in all of contemporary philosophy”. A Defense of Abortion concedes that fetuses should be recognized as persons under the law, but argues that “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”. Jarvis then offers her “violinist argument” as an example of a situation in which most people would recognize the moral justice in allowing an innocent human being to die.

      The example goes something like this. A pregnant woman is comparable to someone who has been kidnapped in her sleep by a fictitious music lovers society, so that her kidneys can be used against her will to sustain the life of another person. The embryo or fetus is comparable to a world-famous violinist, who is unconscious, who suffers from a fatal kidney ailment, and whose life can be sustained only by being “plugged in” to the kidnapped woman. Pregnancy is comparable to the nine months in which the music lovers society is forcing this woman to remain in bed, plugged into the violinist, until he is sufficiently recovered to survive on his own.

      What’s the point of this rather bizarre analogy (besides putting us on our guard against the dangers of predatory music societies)? The point is to show that if it’s reasonable for a kidnapped woman to prevent an unconscious, violinist from using her kidneys, then it must be equally reasonable for a woman to end her pregnancy through abortion. Jarvis is arguing that even though the embryo or fetus is a living human being, it may be justly killed because it is “using” its mother’s body against her will (just as the world-famous violinist did). Here are some of the more obvious problems with her logic:
      • Ninety-nine percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on women who chose to have sexual intercourse. Since pregnancy is a frequent, natural result of sex, these women cannot be compared to someone who is kidnapped in their sleep. They engaged in a behavior that naturally results in pregnancy. To date, there are no behaviors that naturally lead to being kidnapped in your sleep and connected to an unconscious, world-famous musician.
      • The relationship between a pregnant woman and the embryo or fetus in her womb is a mother/child relationship. It is not a relationship between strangers, as Jarvis makes out. Parents have a natural obligation to care for the their children. This is by no means unreasonable or extraordinary.
      • It is only in rare cases that pregnancy confines a woman perennially to her bed. The inconvenience to someone who is kidnapped and forced to stay in bed for nine months far exceeds the inconvenience of a normal pregnancy.
      • Finally, abortion is not just letting an innocent person die, or taking them off of life support. Abortion is an active, violent form of killing. This is an admittedly less substantial objection than the others (since abortion would be objectionable even if the embryo or fetus were simply removed from the womb, alive, and then left to die). Nevertheless, the ethics of Jarvis’ argument would be dramatically complicated if the violinist had to first be dismembered in order to be successfully removed. How many people could actually go with removing the violinist, if they had to first cut his body to pieces?!
      The demands of pregnancy are real and significant, but they are temporary; they are on behalf of a helpless child, and they are perfectly natural. Moral philosophers can scheme to their hearts content, but it doesn’t change the fact that abortion permanently takes away the most fundamental right of an innocent human being. And we’re not talking about a disconnected stranger who has trespassed against the woman. We’re talking about her very own child, a child who does not trespass to live and grow in her womb.
      Thanks,
      Alvin.

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: