Posted on 10/07/2016 5:12:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Christian Post has allowed a Democrat operative to shill for Hillary Clinton, who rivals Barack Obama as the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history. I’m trying to imagine if the issue were slavery, would the Christian Post give its space to the promotion of someone so determined to violently dehumanize God’s creation? If it’s remotely Christian to support a billion-dollar business that daily destroys nearly 1,000 defenseless human lives, then Christians can support anything.
Eric Sapp authors a ridiculously dishonest piece entitled “Hillary Clinton is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion”. He writes: “I'll start by saying that I don't think Christians should be single-issue voters since Christ's ministry wasn't single-issue. But if your concern for the unborn determines your vote, Hillary Clinton should be your candidate.”
For starters, Christ was singularly focused on giving people (eternal) Life. Secondly, as an American who is as black as Obama, I’m grateful that abolitionists were singularly focused; I would make a terrible slave. Thirdly, what planet does Sapp live on?
“It's no coincidence that abortions go up when Republicans are in charge and down when Democrats are.”
Sapp is obviously statistically-challenged. This lazy assertion is false, easily debunked by the actual numbers (see charts here). The nation’s abortion rate hit its highest point (29.3 per 1,000 women ages 15-44) in 1980 during Carter’s administration and remained at that level in 1981 under Reagan. This also coincided with the pregnancy rate hitting an apex that same year. The abortion rate then declined during Reagan’s term, about 6.5%, ending the annual abortion rate increase during Carter’s presidency. The abortion rate then declined nearly every year thereafter with few exceptions (1988, 2003, 2006). The year he highlights, 1990, was the year of the highest total number of abortions as well as the highest pregnancy rate in decades.
In 2009 the pregnancy rate was the lowest in 12 years, according to the CDC, which could partially explain the sharper abortion rate decreases since 1990. Context matters.
“And what did Republicans [during the George W. Bush administration] do to overturn Roe or in any meaningful way limit abortion? Nothing.”
Well, here’s a whole lot of “nothing”, I guess:
And this is just on the federal level. Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted legislation to whittle away at the egregious unconstitutional Roe decree. Constitutional foes, in the form of pro-abortion Democrats, fight every single prolife effort. Perhaps Sapp has never heard of pregnancy resource centers—you know, those thousands of facilities across the country (CareNet, Heartbeat International, NIFLA) that care for mothers and their children. Many are medical. Some even provide prenatal care. All offer their services, including parenting classes and maternal and baby supplies, at no cost to their clients. These centers are a threat to Big Abortion, rescuing mothers, fathers and their children and offering help and hope.
Sapp alludes to contraception as the answer to reducing abortions. He must have missed those statistics on how national unintended pregnancy rates only increased from 1995 to 2011 (from 49% to 51%), according to the CDC and Guttmacher, despite more access to contraception than ever before in human history.
Contraception hasn’t reduced abortions. Moral conviction has.
I’m no Donald Trump fan, but at least he surrounds himself with constitutionally-sound, pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty staff and advisers. Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, who voted against the gruesome Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, surrounds herself with those who want to expand abortion. She has promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, forcing American taxpayers to fund abortion (in addition to existing forced funding through Obamacare). So, someone with a 100% NARAL “pro-choice” voting record is going to reduce abortions? Sure.
I guess 100% pro-slavery Democrats were also the source of slavery’s reduction and eventual abolition. Does Sapp really believe what he’s selling? It’s amazing how time has changed little in the Party that fought, vehemently, to protect slavery. Its leadership still believes that some humans are not equal. Been there. Done with that.
“But at least "pro-choice" politicians who believe the fetus is not a child are being morally consistent.”
So, pro-abortion politicians who deny basic biology are “morally consistent”? Pro-abortion politicians who aid and abet the killing of over 56 million human lives are “morally consistent”? Pro-abortion politicians who declare in the Democratic Party Platform that they will “stand up for Planned Parenthood”—a Medicaid defrauding, rape non-reporting, aborted-baby-parts trafficking, business of epic corruption—are “morally consistent”? I think he means immoral and inconsistent.
And that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton is. (I’m not arguing that Trump is moral, by the way. My friend Jonathon Van Maren wrote an excellent piece on this and the reasons why many Christians will reluctantly be voting for Trump over Hillary.) She decries the deaths of those killed by gun violence while being endorsed and funded by the leading killer of unarmed lives (of any hue).
As an adoptee and adoptive father who was conceived in rape, the only political hope for protection of lives like mine, or the 1.1 million aborted annually, is in a Party that believes we’re all created equal. Sapp and other liberal evangelicals can shill for the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow and Abortion. As a Christian, I’ll promote truth and freedom, instead, by illuminating the fact that every human life has irreplaceable God-given purpose.
You think he’s just mistaken about her positions, that he’s fallen for the lie himself?
Closing the “God Gap” has been Rats’ announced plan in swaying the religious vote ever since they lost the 2004 election.
In 2006 they outted two faggots in the GOP and claimed it was evidence of a culture of corruption that rose to the top ranks of the party (even though the press and the DNC knew about one of those events LONG before they were chiding the GOP for “knowing and doing nothing”, memos indicate the press and DNC colluded to keep it for an October surprise).
Suppressing the religious vote (by convincing them to just stay home) or duping the religious vote (by convincing them that the Democrat candidate really DOES oppose same sex marriage and abortion) are all about closing that “gap”.
It’s going to take a constitutional amendment to reinforce the protection of life and prohibit genetic discrimination (killing a baby because it is the “Wrong” sex or being discriminated against because you are prone to health conditions for reasons of heredity).
I believe a lot of people, quite possibly he too, fall for “halo effect.”
Hillary does a fair job of projecting a halo... she did so in her first debate with Donald.
It’s a wrong and shallow place to be, to stand in that halo.
But it just doesn’t look like the brand of evil we see Hillary herself practicing. Those fooled by the evil magician are usually not as evil as the evil magician.
Carts never belong before horses, and a law only does as much good as the consensus that brings it to bear, a bolster to a weak resolve.
Personhood amendments sound wonderful, till our lawyer set gets its hands on them (and they may do so for the sake of being devil’s advocates).
A natural-family amendment would make more sense — that all policy will be weighed in the light of such consideration.
I hear ya' - but we also need to have discernment, and to call a lie and lie, even if it hurts someone's feelings.
To do anything less could be enabling bad behavior.
But “You’ve believed a lie” doesn’t mean “Your destiny is only hell.”
Many churches see more through theory than they do through Christ, which latter can be a humbling (and irritating, since mortal thought is so contrary to it) experience.
And to believe a lie is not to lie. Lies presuppose understanding the truth and are a higher level of wrong.
You can be Evangelical, or you can be liberal. You can’t be both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.