Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Removing God from the Abortion Debate: Questions and Facts

by Barbara Buzzard

Excerpts from the book, God and Hillary Clinton:

There is nothing more sacrosanct to Hillary Clinton than a “woman’s right to choose.” It is her alpha and omega, beyond doubt her highest priority. I wrote an entire book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, and the one thing that struck me above all else, from start to finish, was her absolute fealty [loyalty] to Roe v. Wade. It is Hillary’s hill to die on. I believe Hillary Clinton would give her life for Roe v. Wade.

Author Paul Kengor discovered that Hillary’s doctor (Harrison) was the state’s leading abortion doctor who boasted of having performed thousands of abortions.

Like Hillary, Harrison saw legal abortion as moral. He waxed religious in searching for words to characterize it. He described his patients as “born again,” even while conceding, “I am destroying life.” He candidly called himself an “abortionist” — a term of derision employed by abortion foes. “You don’t understand,” he reprimanded me. “I consider what I do very pro-life. I am saving lives when I do abortions.” 
The United Methodist Church (UMC) at the time officially supported legal abortion, and was a member of the hideous Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which, mercifully, it finally withdrew from only this past April. The UMC’s liberalism on abortion appealed to Hillary and her abortion-providing doctor.

Now, however, the UMC mourns the high abortion rates and opposes partial birth abortion. Hillary continues to call herself a Methodist.

And so we have on the one side:                                          And on the other:
Scripture:                                                                              Hillary:
“Destruction is certain for those who                                     Advocates even for partial
say that evil is good and good is evil” (Isa. 5:20a).               birth abortion,calling it moral

Hillary Clinton is clearly hostile to biblical teaching; her actions do not harmonize with a Christian view. She praises and endorses wickedness.

LifeNews.com poses these questions to Hillary:
1. Why do you think an unborn child has no constitutional rights?
2. Should an unborn child have any legal rights before he’s born?
3. Why do you think Christians should be forced to change their views on abortion?
4. Why do you think it’s okay to abort babies just because they have Down Syndrome?
5. Why did you pick a running mate who claims he is a Catholic in good standing while contradicting the pro-life views of the Catholic Church?
6. Why do you “admire” population control activist Margaret Sanger?
7. Why did you defend Planned Parenthood when it was caught selling aborted baby parts?
8. Why did you laugh when someone removed “under God” from the pledge of allegiance?
9. Why do you support late-term abortions on babies after 20 weeks? (Why are you prepared to abort a child at full term, murdering and dismembering it?)
10. Why did you compare the majority of Americans who are pro-life to terrorists?

Also from LifeNews.com: 

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas doesn’t mince any words in a new editorial he posted on the web site of the Catholic archdiocese he heads. He says Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine is just a “cafeteria Catholic” because he supports abortion.

Naumann’s column is so eloquent nothing needs to be added to it:

In the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate, Senator Kaine acknowledged he was blessed with great Irish Catholic parents and grew up in a wonderful faith-filled family. He also mentioned proudly that he is a graduate of Rockhurst High School, crediting the Jesuits with instilling within him a desire for public service and a commitment to advocate for the poor. I wish that was the end of the story.
It was painful to listen to Senator Kaine repeat the same tired and contorted reasoning to profess his personal opposition to abortion while justifying his commitment to keep it legal. He said all the usual made-for-modern-media sound bites: It is not proper to impose his religious beliefs upon all Americans. He trusts women to make good reproductive choices. And when all else fails, there is always: Do we really want to criminalize and fill our jails with post-abortive women?.
Why is Senator Kaine personally opposed to abortion, if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life? I hope in his science classes at Rockhurst he learned that at the moment of fertilization a new human life has begun with his or her own distinct DNA — different from the genetic code of both the child’s mother and father.
It is difficult to imagine that Senator Kaine has not seen the ultrasound images of his children and grandchildren when they were in their mother’s womb. Is the senator unaware that abortion stopped the beating hearts of 60 million American children aborted legally since 1973?
If he knows these truths of biology, why would he believe that anyone has the right to authorize the killing of an unborn human being? This is where the reproductive choice euphemism breaks apart. Does anyone really have the choice to end another human being’s life? Our choices end where another individual’s more fundamental rights begin.
As Naumann concludes:
Unfortunately, the vice-presidential debate revealed that the Catholic running for the second highest office in our land is an orthodox member of his party, fully embracing his party’s platform, but a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings of the Catholic Church that are politically convenient.

No comments:

Post a Comment