Moore to the Point -

Thoughtful question by Dr. Moore on Time's article about the pro-life movement, and my response.  Either my comments are blocked or just not being saved correctly due to my browser (probably the former) but here's my response regardless:

A very good article, and I think you make some good points from a political standpoint that most of the legislation from a "pro-life" standpoint is merely symbolic in nature, especially from so-called pro-life candidates.  But I think the issue is much bigger than simply the abortion platform as well.  I've wondered why it is that in the evangelical church today, you find married elected officer serving that are either deliberately childless, or only chose to bring up one child.  Can one truly be "pro-life" if at the same time they shun the blessing of a fruitful womb? (either biologically or adoptive.)  What testimony does a married church elder make, in light of the "pro-life" viewpoint, when he and his wife willingly decide not to raise any children?  The abortion issue is big... but I wonder sometimes if an issue like this is just as big, but avoided being taboo?

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media

Gospel coalition had this post recently: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media

But I think they missed out on the biggest one:  "What about the medical side effects of abortion?  Are women being fairly and honestly informed about the medical consequences of a surgical abortion, both immediate and long-term?"  From a strictly naturalistic viewpoint, abortion is NEVER safe.  It's foolish to ever apply a word like that to a procedure in which a woman has an unborn child surgically destroyed and vacuumed from the body.  A back-alley abortion could be considered "more" dangerous compared to a hospital-setting abortion, sure, but even at a hospital, or a posh abortion clinic, the fact remains: when a woman gets a DNC, it isn't safe, and there are plenty of medical risks such as uterine puncture, hemorrhaging, scarring, internal bleeding, side-effects from the medication, etc, etc.

Yes, natural childbirth is dangerous, I'll agree, but I think comparing abortion to natural childbirth is something of a false dichotomy. Natural childbirth, by it's very nature, is a natural process in which a woman, with minimal (if any) intervention, delivers a child. It doesn't need to be done in a hospital, and technically can be done without a doctor or nurses or major intervention of any major degree. Not so abortion. You can't just "naturally" have an abortion: there are doctors are nurses required, and drugs, and for a standard D&C-style procedure, there needs to be a hospital room, medical equipment, drugs, and a lot of HUMAN intervention, which can in many respects be prone to error (check out some of the YouTube "abortion clinic 9-11 calls" sometime).

 Abortion clinics generally do NOT have all of the full medical facilities/specialists that a standard hospital ER will have, so if something goes wrong during the abortion surgery, a 9-11 call needs to be made to take the woman from the abortion clinic to the hospital. The abortion-breast cancer link is another issue as well. Plenty of good research suggesting a connection, and even more convincing that there is a risk is the fact that mainstream media routinely buries these stories about a connection - and if the MSM buries a story, you know there's truth to it. And if there is no connection, then where on earth is this epic breast cancer epidemic coming from lately?

Abortion is never safe, regardless of where and how it's done, and women need to be adequately informed.  Laws should mandate that women are fully informed before the surgery so that they know exactly what the risks are.  There needs to be more objective research done into the abortion/cancer risk as well.

Things I learned from the 2012 election...

This last election was all about Obama vs. a lesser version of Obama
Mitt wasn't really all that different from Obama.  He wouldn't have come into office and radically cut back government and spending.  It would have just been more of the same.  Honestly, I don't care for Obama's platform or his grizzly, unborn-child-hating policies, but I find I care just as less for Mormon-cult-following Romney.  Yeah, I voted for Romney, but only as a protest against the incumbent, and not to support the cultist (in fact, from a religious standpoint, I'd rather have a nominal-Muslim like Obama in office than a Mormon and a Roman Catholic.  The idea of a Roman Catholic president is the stuff of nightmares, as it's a much worse cult than Mormonism that teaches a grotesque, satanic blending of church and state, with a long bloody history of burning baptists like me.

The mainstream media is a joke
The MSM is just a giant Obama hype machine and...

You know what... I'm ending this post before I even get going, because a giant lightning bolt of realization just hit me:  I really don't care.  No more politics tags for me.  I'm sick of it all, and I'd rather write about something else.

Why I voted for Mitt today...

Went to the polls today for the basic purpose not of voting FOR Mitt, but rather for voting Obama out of the Whtie House. This is the first election I think that I've ever been to where I haven't cared at all about the candidate that I voted for, but rather, I will vote for whoever is the leading candidate that isn't Obama.

He's basically blown 4 years, with his only legacy being a ridiculous medical care tax to get burdened with. The economy isn't much better, food is insanely expensive, we're still sending troops all around the middle east, and I don't see how things are any better off. I'd like him gone.  Now.

Understand that I'm not crazy about Mitt and his false gospel cult beliefs, nor the fact he's on the same pro-abortion band-wagon, but he has one thing going for him: he's not Obama. And he appears to be leading Obama in several of the swing states, so he's got my vote.  I hope the guy wins, even though I don't care much for him.

Now enough about politics. I hate politics. But this time of year, in an election year, it's all you hear about. So I've voted, and I'm done with it. If Obama wins, we have Nebucadnezzer for another 4 years (and maybe he'll go nutty and grow his hair long and start eating grass). But enough: my vote is cast. I'm going to start reading more about the Mennonites, or Martyn-Lloyd Jones, or something else more interesting...

Russell Moore and 'Red Ragtop' by Tim McGraw

I generally enjoy the podcast by Russell Moore of Southern Seminary called "the Cross and the Jukebox", in which Dr. Moore gives a Christian overview of different songs, generally of a classic country flavor but also including more contemporary numbers as well.  Recently he covered the song Red Ragtop by Tim McGraw, an annoying song with an even more annoying pro-abortion message nestled within it. 

What struck me about this song (and what I shared in the comments, and which was apparently too graphic to note, as it was deleted) was the fact that to me the title of the song, "Red Ragtop", has embedded within in the sound of "red rag", which in a way is evocative to me of hemorrhaging following abortion, namely the aftermath of the grizzly, abortive D&C procedure in which the unborn child is destroyed (something not usually talked about by the "women's health" propagandists of the mainstream media.  If we all believed the mainstream media, abortion would be described as nothing more than a "health decision" with no long-term health and/or psychological ramifications.)  I suppose I can see how the comment was irrelevant, but then again, half of what I post in my 1000+ some Disqus comments online are generally irrelevant.  I rarely go back to my comments once I leave them, but I speak my peace and move on.  It's generally confrontative basement-dwellers that spend all day following a comment thread.  Not me.  I don't care.

But in the situation with this comment, I was morbidly curious to see if it would land, and alas, it didn't.  Still, the song title brings to mind the less-than-pleasant aftermath of abortive butchery to me, of failed elective surgeries, of 9-11 calls from abortion clinics that are unable to provide adequate "women's health" when abortions go bad. 

I have a fear that we're going to wind up with the incumbent for another 4 years, and that's going to mean more legislation geared towards killing the unborn, at the expense of the collective taxpayer.  I really fear for the direction this country is going sometimes.

A Valid Abortion Debate Question (free to be used at the political debate of your liking)

I've been percolating this question in my head for awhile now, originally thinking this would be ideal for a presidential debate question, but the more I think about it, this could be a fair question to ask the pro-abortion candidate at ANY political debate. I think this is a fair question, yet at the same time is a massive setup that cannot be answered by a politician without either looking very evasive or looking really awful (or both).  I post this here since I will probably never get a chance to use it, but if anyone reading this, for any reason, happens to be at a political debate and wants a good question, feel free to use it. Maybe you are the one debating the pro-abortion candidate, or maybe you're just someone in the audience who gets to ask the pro-abortion candidate the question. Whatever the situation, feel free to use this one, as I think this is a fair and thoughtful question to ask anyone who supports abortion...

Good evening, (Pro-abortion candidate Name)
I would like to propose a role-playing scenario (that I believe is a completely plausible) and I would like to hear your particular response to this situation:

You are visiting a local Planned Parenthood clinic in your district, to thank your voter base for their support, and while there the clinic facilitator takes you on a tour of the building. While on the third floor you pass the area where the live-birth abortions are performed. A doctor is about to help a "patient" and, seeing you, comes over, shakes your hand and thanks you for your support of "reproductive freedom". He looks at you in all seriousness and then makes an unusual request. "Our principle nurse is out today," he begins, "and I'm wondering if you could help me out."

Puzzled, you tell him that you have no medical qualifications and are in no position to help out. Seeing your confused expression, he laughs and assures you with "Oh, don't worry. I'm just doing a live-birth abortion today. Basically, I give a drug to a woman who's several months into her pregnancy, and it will cause her to prematurely go into labor, delivering the fetus alive. All I need for you to do is put on some scrubs and sit over there in that rocking chair. I will hand you the fetus after it's been delivered, and all you need to do is hold it until it dies of exposure. All told, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Then the medical incinerator is right behind you."

So that's the scenario. Considering your views on a "woman's right to choose" that you believe in, if presented with this scenario, would you participate? Would you hold that living child and be willing to let that child die of exposure in your hands?

John Grisham's Newest Legal Thriller: "The Gavel"!

(Here's a summary of the newest John Grisham legal thriller... that doesn't actually exist, but I think would make a great book, if Grisham would be to write it...)

The story: Kyle Swift is an up-and-coming attorney at a prestigious New York law firm, who's world is about to be shaken by an unmistakably incredible case that will rock the legal profession, and the world, with tons of thrilling superlatives!

Kyle is in his office one day, doing paperwork and looking at a picture on his desk of his two children and lamenting his vasectomy, when suddenly his receptionist calls and tells him that his appointment has arrived. In walks a woman that looks remarkably like Reese Witherspoon, except that physically she's greatly withered. You see, Reese is struggling with breast cancer but, being a Christian Scientist (which is neither "Christian" nor "scientific") she has avoided all cancer medications and treatments because, you know, "it's all in her mind!"

Anyhow, she tells Kyle about her history as a director of a Planned Parenthood Killing Temple in Texas. During that time she herself had a number of surgical abortions performed, and following these disgusting surgeries she was diagnosed with breast cancer. This puzzled Reese, as she lived a very healthy lifestyle and ate nothing but organic vitamin supplements and tree bark soup. How could someone as important and healthy as she contract breast cancer? Then she started doing the research and discovered that indeed there is a medically-documented link between abortion and breast cancer, and now Reese wants to sue the Abortion Killing Temple that performed the abortion that gave her the cancer!

'Whoa', thinks Kyle. This lawsuit could be huge, and could be dangerous! Those Abortion Killers won't take nicely to this legislation. And indeed they don't! As this high-profile legal case makes the news, soon mob goons are dispatched to take Kyle out of the picture, by means of thrilling high-speed car chases, shooting guns and black-legged-dart-frog poison darts! Kyle is on the run, wearing disguises and seeking out legal documents in time for court, but will he be too late?

Soon it's time for the trial, and it's pandemonium! The Abortion Temple has bought the jury, and the trial turns ugly! The judge goes insane! And then, when things look like they can't get much worse, Judge Wapner and Doug Llewellyn show up for the trial of the century!!!

Stay turned for this gripping thriller! John Grisham, if you're reading this, I will gladly give you the rights to this book, as long as Lavender Darwin is able to make a cameo in the courtroom somewhere (perhaps as a tough yet compassionate bailiff?)