Obama Marks Roe v. Wade by ‘Redoubling Commitment’ to ‘Constitutional Right’ to Abortion

ObamaWASHINGTON — On the day marking 43 years since the issuance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 60 million American babies and counting through “legalized” abortion, Barack Obama released a statement “redoubling” his commitment to the “Constitutional right” to abortion.

“Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health,” he wrote as thousands of Americans took to the streets of the nation’s capital for the annual “March for Life.” “The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor.”

“As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them,” Obama said.

He concluded his statement by declaring that “[i]n America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.” Some have interpreted Obama’s remark as meaning that abortion provides a means for Americans to realize their dreams.

Obama made similar statements last year in proclaiming that women should have equality with men.

“Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons,” he said on the 42nd commemoration of Roe.

Obama’s assertion, however, is not the first of its kind made by the federal government. As previously reported, in 1992, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, contended that abortion is necessary so that women can have active social and professional lives.

  • Connect with Christian News

“For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,” O’Connor wrote on behalf of the nation’s highest court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives,” she said.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down new abortion regulations in Texas that some say would close most of the abortion facilities in the state. Texas officials are being sued over the requirement for abortionists to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and for abortion facilities to meet the standards of surgical centers.

“Those requirements are unnecessary to protect—indeed, would harm—women’s health, and they would result in closure of three quarters of the abortion clinics in the state,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

There were 42 abortion facilities in Texas prior to the passage of the law, and 19 currently remain open. Opponents of the regulations state that the number would shrink to 10 should all the facets of the law be upheld.

The high court is expected to rule in the case in June.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Josey

    “Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health,” he wrote as thousands of Americans took to the streets of the nation’s capital for the annual “March for Life.” “The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor.” says Obama and yet when it comes to guns there is no end to where the government would intrude on the privacy between doctor and patient as is what he’s put in his broadddddddddddd executive action, can’t believe some of the ridiculous reasons a person should not be allowed a gun in that document, I didn’t read the whole thing but what I saw was enough to spew coffee out my nose from laughing so hard at some of the reasons which would include every American for there wouldn’t be one reason listed that would give the ok on having a gun legally. What a hypocrite and liar!

    • afchief

      This man is evil. Pure evil!!!

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        He is demonic. He is headed for an awful Judgment Day – just awful. I cannot imagine what his Hell will be like, if he does not repent.

        • gizmo23

          He will be right next to Bush and Reagan

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            How so?

          • gizmo23

            He has done much different tha these 2

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Obama’s works are like filthy rags – they will not get him into Heaven.

          • Valri

            You don’t get to make that call, Crazy. You aren’t God.

        • Valri

          “Demonic” LOL

        • gizmo23

          You will be clapping and joyous when you see people tortured for all eternity?

          • Valri

            Based on how WGC taunts people who disagree with him, I think that’s a foregone conclusion.

          • Josey

            I think you are the projecting

          • Valri

            It’s not difficult to do a Google search, Josey.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nope. I will be clapping and joyous to know that people have been given their choice to spend Eternity away from the God they so hate – and that I will not be forced to spend Eternity with Hitler, Stalin, and unrepentant abortionists and pro-aborts:

            “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” ― C.S. Lewis

          • Josey

            What a day of rejoicing to be in Heaven with others who love the Lord Jesus Christ and have pure fellowship where no sin is allowed in, no more tears, hate, perverseness, murdering, you get the picture…amen world, can’t wait to meet you all there! Praise the Name of Jesus, Come quickly Lord!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen, Josey – I cannot wait until I get to meet you there – what an awesome time of rejoicing and story-telling and praise that will be! And praise God Almighty that God-haters and baby-sacrificers like Valri and Gizmo will get what they want too: eternal separation from the God they so desperately despise.

          • Valri

            Number of babies Valri has sacrificed: 0
            Number of babies I suspect Gizmo has sacrificed: 0
            Talking out one’s posterior makes for great theater. Too bad it’s so long on crazy, Crazy.

            Also, I do not despise what I do not believe is there.

          • gizmo23

            How do you know Hitler and Stalin didn’t ask for forgiveness 1 minute before they died? You seem to have the power to determine who is saved and who isn’t. Are you really God?

          • Bob Johnson

            And he makes this choice by judging their “works”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, Stalin shook his fist at the God he did not believe in right before he died, and there is no indication that Hitler suddenly began to worship a Jewish Messiah right before he died. 🙂 You shall know them by their fruits, Gizmo, and the fruits of these men stank like death.

            Some men harden their hearts beyond repentance, like Pharaoh. Don’t be one of them, Gizmo.

          • gizmo23

            I don’t but I have no power to guess at who is in heaven and who is not. IMO

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            We cannot know with 100% certainty, but the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to discern sheep from wolves based on their fruits. Jesus specifically talked about this. Otherwise we would just be lost in a sea of moral relativism. But, Jesus said He was sending a Counselor (Comforter, etc), and the way we receive Him is by placing our trust in Jesus just as we would place our trust in a surgeon before a serious surgery. At the moment we do this, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and given the ability to better discern wolves from sheep and right from wrong. Our eyes are opened to both the beauty of God’s creation but also the destruction caused by man;s sinfulness. This is Christianity 101 I am speaking of here.

            I was pro-life the last 13 years of my atheism – I knew based on basic science and morality that it was wrong, but it was not until I became a Christian that I came to understand what an incredible attack abortion is on God Himself and His earliest creation, not to mention that it is the world’s worst holocaust. If we do not have this Holy Spirit, then we would not know how serious a crime abortion is against both God and humanity, nor would we know who to warn about the reality of Hell, because we would not be able to reliably discern right from wrong or good fruits from bad ones. The New Testament, and Paul especially, spend a great deal of time talking about discernment – after Pentecost, which marks the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the original disciples of Jesus. This Pentecost is available to all who will freely accept Him.

          • Valri

            Holy crap.

            I read your posts and I’m torn between feeling sorry for the kind and tolerant Christians who have this kind of hate spouted on their behalf, and being SO glad I don’t follow the same belief system you do.

            And you’re always going on about how you used to be an atheist. I’ll bet you never would have said anything this hateful when you were one. You were doing better then.

          • Elie Challita

            WGC, how do you know that you’re going to heaven, considering just how many denominations of Christianity believe the same thing, and that many of them can have very different definitions of salvation from yours?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hi Elie, good hearing from you! How are you doing, my friend?

            “how do you know that you’re going to heaven”

            1. Jesus says so. I trust Him and take Him at His Word.
            2. God will not force anyone into Heaven against his will.
            3. God will not leave any sincere truth-seeker without sufficient Light to come to know Him.
            4. Objective moral justice exists. (Thank you for your help, Elie, in my secular proof for this.)
            5. Jesus is the God of Life. Those who support the devil of death by advocating for abortion will be allowed to spend eternity with same, including unrepentant abortionists, deathscorts, etc. Heaven would be Hell for people who love death so much. Plus, those who hate God would despise being around those of us who love Him for eternity. It would not be fair to you, Elie, to force you there against your will. God loves you and respects your free will decision to turn your back on Him.

            “many of them can have very different definitions of salvation from yours”

            The core essential for salvation is given in item 1 above. Even liberal denominations affirm this, but, of course, they do not sincerely believe what they affirm in writing. The fact that all denominations and non-denoms may differ on non-essentials is no warrant against their agreement on core essentials. And, of course, belonging to a church saves no one. It is what is in the individual heart that God knows perfectly that is regarding salvation.

            CS Lewis does a nice job of summarizing my main points, above:

            “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” ― C.S. Lewis

            Again, very nice hearing from you, Elie.

          • Elie Challita

            I understand your position, WGC, and that would explain why, as a Christian in general, you think you would end up there.
            But on a more specific level, how do you know that you, or your specific denomination, out of all possible denominations of Christianity, got it right?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey, Elie – great talking with you, my friend! Love your questions, dude!

            OK, when you say “your specific denomination,” you do understand that salvation is not dependent on any denomination, right, as I explained above – belonging to a church or denomination saves no one? There is no doctrine, creed, epistle, or anything that I am aware of that says “belong to this denomination, or you go to Hell.” (There are cults that claim that, but they are so far away from the essentials that they are hardly recognizable.)

            I am a non-denom, but I hang with Christians of many denominations and non-denoms like me. Many of the people I hang with have not even told me what church they go to – I guess we are just Jesus freaks like the early Christians. We hang out in homes and restaurants and sidewalks a lot. 🙂

            I have attended many churches – Baptist, Bible, Methodist, Catholic, etc. I am going to a Charismatic Episcopal Church right now run by some of our pro-life leaders – it is pretty kewl actually. But, I am still non-denom. I am very comfortable with anyone who sincerely professes that Jesus is Lord and shows the fruits of the sincerity of that profession. Pretty simple actually. Their church activities are not high on our discussion agenda either – we are busy spreading the Gospel of Jesus – taking it to the streets (Doobie Brothers :-)) – and the Gospel of Life.

            Or perhaps you think that a Christian’s salvation is tied to a perfect knowledge of God or His Word? If such were true, we would all be just as unsaved as if our salvation depended on works. We can agree on the main and plain and vigorously debate the outlying doctrines, yet still be comfortable calling each other Brother and Sister.

            As an analogy, every airline pilot understands, believes, and adheres to the Bernoulli Principle. But, they might vigorously disagree on whether they like to have blond or brunette flight attendants. If they give up on the Bernoulli Principle, their plane crashes. But, if they trade a blond for a brunette, or vice versa, they still make their destination on time and it’s not the end of the world. 🙂

            I have never really understood the New Atheist line “which of the 17,000 denominations is the right one?” It seems to be a strawman that says “if you don’t pick the correct denomination, you go to Hell.” But, such a view would be found nowhere in the Bible, early Church, creeds, or doctrines.

            I think that this denomination line by the New Atheists needs to be retired along with the demonstrably false atheist myths of “you can’t prove a negative” and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The New Atheist seems to think he is saying something clever or deep or penetrating here, but these are really just slogans from a rather dumbed-down approach to their worldview. Please forgive me if I am coming off arrogant here, Elie, but we (former) Old Atheists just never would have gone that route. Nothing personal, of course.

            See if you can get those silly slogans off of the atheist forums for me, OK? 🙂 (I am NOT accusing YOU of slogan-eering, BTW – no way – you are a really smart thinker!) Great hearing from you again, and I hope your New Year is going well, now that it is already 1/12 gone!

          • Elie Challita

            I get that, but you have to admit that the definition of salvation itself is very different from one set of Christians to another. You wouldn’t find Catholics arguing that they only need to accept Jesus as their savior.

            It’s not a slogan so much as an honest question: A lot of atheists (who dub themselves igtheists) don’t believe in a god simply because they have yet to receive a coherent explanation of what a god is, or how to follow one.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey, Elie!

            “the definition of salvation itself is very different from one set of Christians to another”

            How so? Please provide citations for this statement you are making. The Gospel is pretty simple actually – that is why an uneducated peasant woman living in India can get it just like an Oxford scholar.

            “You wouldn’t find Catholics arguing that they only need to accept Jesus as their savior.”

            You would be surprised. I am married to a Catholic and spend most of my time during the week surrounded by Christians who are 50% Catholic. You would be surprised how a serious Catholic approaches salvation. It is much more subtle when it comes to works than you might think. Have you ever looked at the Catholic liturgy in their services? Nicene Creed, Lord’s Prayer, Gloria, etc – how heretic! 🙂 But, of course, we non-Catholics debate other points in the Mass much more vigorously. And, I do agree with you that the way we approach the Book of James is slightly different, but much more slightly than you might realize. I won’t become Catholic, but that is NOT because I think that they do not believe that Jesus is Lord.

            There are saved and unsaved in every church, every denomination, and every non-denom, Elie. It goes back to the points I made earlier – the Gospel is very simple – except for those who are too sophisticated for their own good. Which was me. And might still be me, hehe. 🙂

            So again, I have to ask you: where in Christianity or the Bible or the creeds or doctrines or epistles does it say that salvation is dependent on which denomination one belongs too? If you can’t answer that question, then the slogan is a strawman. The time period where Christians were killing each other because of doctrinal differences was an anomaly – a brutal and regrettable anomaly nonetheless – if that is what you are thinking?

            “A lot of atheists (who dub themselves igtheists) don’t believe in a god simply because they have yet to receive a coherent explanation of what a god is, or how to follow one.”

            Well, now we have come to a question that is quite different from the denominational question. You are in luck here, because as a former atheist, I backed my way into Christian theism the long way. 🙂 You and I have been through all of the evidence for the existence of God – the arguments like Kalam, fine-tuning, contingency, moral, etc – but your question as to what the characteristics of God are – in order to be rationally coherent – is a question of philosophy as much as theology. That is an area of interest to me too! Here would be a short list of characteristics which would be necessary, but not sufficient, for God to be coherent – these are just off the top of my head:

            1. Causal
            2. Non-contingent
            3. Logically Omniscient
            4. Logically Omnipotent
            5. Creative
            6. Timeless without creation and temporal (in some sense) with creation.
            7. Sustaintitive
            (5 and 7 would lead to an unconstrained Reality)
            8. Objectively Moral

            Now, all of these characteristics – and others – would need to be rigorously defined, obviously. But, if you look back to the 60’s and 70’s, you had a pretty strong anti-theistic philosophy attacking the coherence of God. It actually turned out to be a very good thing, as philosophical theology erupted to respond to these questions. Now, it turns out that the Christian theist has a very wide latitude in dealing with these philosophical considerations. The original “God is dead” movement turned out to be a real blessing and boon for this field. And secular science has confirmed the first 3 words of the Bible in the last 40 years too – as a bonus!

            As for “how to follow one,” I recommend doing what we (former) anti-Bible, anti-Christians do: talk to God. If God brought 100 billion galaxies into existence out of nothing material, then He should be able to hear you. Ask Him if He is there. Ask Him to show you evidence for Him. Tell Him you need more evidence to be convinced He is real. Tell Him you need direction on how to follow Him. Then listen. (not audibly but in the people and situations he places in your path.) If He is not there, no loss. I did it all by myself – and I wasn’t in a church – you can count on that! 🙂

            If He is real and He is there and He is really this powerful, He should be able to answer those questions for you in a way in which you can understand. And, in fact, the Christian God promises He will leave NO sincere truth-seeker behind – He just will NOT do it. That’s basically what I did when I became convinced that it was more plausible to believe in some sort of Supreme Being than not. And, I asked Him to fix me, because although I had everything the world would want, I knew I was missing something deep inside – spiritually. And I have not regretted it one bit since.

            Hope this helps explain some of this, Elie – sorry i write so much – great hearing from you again, my friend!!!

          • Elie Challita

            I’m glad you’ve had such an inclusionary experience, but I think you might be in the minority there. Typically that laissez-faire attitude is more prevalent among less devout groups or more liberal believers.

            I’m somewhat familiar with the philosophical arguments, although as an untrained amateur I’m mostly muddling my way through them. Many of them have equally valid refutations though, or questions, don’t they?
            I recommend you take a look at a youtube channel called the Messianic Manic. He does a much better job of articulating those flaws than I can.

            I understand that your stance is on personal belief and communion with God, then? But isn’t that essentially subjective in nature?
            What is to stop believers from coming to mutually contradictory answers from their supposed communion with god? Wouldn’t that impact the whole “objectively moral” aspect because, as far as these believers are concerned, each of their interpretation is the morally objective one?

            You know the old saw, I think “If you talk to God, you’re religious. If he answers, you probably need medication”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m glad you’ve had such an inclusionary experience, but I think you might be in the minority there.”

            Not historically. Not even close.

            “Typically that laissez-faire attitude is more prevalent among less devout groups or more liberal believers.”

            You just insulted me, Elie. 🙂 You won’t find anyone LESS “less devout groups or more liberal” than me. 🙂

            “Many of them have equally valid refutations though, or questions, don’t they?”

            Not at all. If you look at the deductive problem of evil, for instance, that was a clear win for theism. You see very little serious work being done there by atheists anymore. You see these things – like the Epicurean Dilemma – still being spouted on atheist chat boards as if there is something meaningful there, but it has been destroyed by theistic philosophers and the vast majority of atheist philosophers have affirmed the deductive problem of evil, as a whole, not just the Epicurean Dilemma, as a loss. The simple logic just does not follow.

            On warranted belief, you have seen an explosion of productive thought in favor of the theist. And, of course, secular science has confirmed the first 3 words of the Bible, so it is rather nice to see atheists catching up. 🙂 Reminds me of this famous quote:

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

            So, on the intellectual side, it really is a nice time to be a theist.

            “I recommend you take a look at a youtube channel called the Messianic Manic.”

            OK, so I did. These kinds of sites are really the product of a lazy, dumbed down, anti-intellectual educational system. When I see the word “f’cking” and all sorts of silly slogans and things, it just makes me weep for these folks. Lots of anger there, against the God they do not believe in, which phenomenon science has confirmed.

            OK, so one of MM’s more recent posts was on his fb page. It was about Bible difficulties, and how Christian theists perform gymnastics to resolve them. It was about the lineage of Jesus. Let us see if we can put his argument into logical form versus emotional form like MM:

            1. The Bible has apparent contradictions, like the lineage of Jesus.
            2. These apparent contradictions take a lot of work to resolve.
            3. Therefore, [conclusion.]

            OK, so now the big question is this – even if we accept his premises: What is MM’s conclusion?

            A. The Bible is not inerrant on the lineage of Jesus – therefore Christianity is not true?
            B. The Bible is not inerrant on the lineage of Jesus – therefore Jesus is a legend?
            C. The Bible is not inerrant on the lineage of Jesus – therefore God does not exist?

            You can see that in none of these examples does the conclusion even come close to following the premises. (You can prove this by putting the arguments into propositional logic form – but I am pretty sure that MM is not up to that task. :-)) You could drive a train through the holes in this “logic.”

            So, this is my beef against New Atheism: it appears to be a schoolgirl sort of club, sitting around taking shots at the unpopular girls while putting nothing of substance up in return. Rarely will you see a New Atheist construct a logical argument in premise-conclusion form with evidence in favor of the No God Hypothesis – very rarely. To me, it is more of a form of immature absurdism than intellectual atheism. There is an emotional authority problem there – but little intellectual thought.

            “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.” — Professor Thomas Nagel, NYU

            “But isn’t that essentially subjective in nature?”

            Oh sure, but it is subjective data that can be tested. For instance, the explanatory power and scope of Christian thought seems to better correspond with reality than other belief systems. So, the experiences can be checked to see if they conform with objective truth sources – science, history, mathematics, the Bible, etc.

            “What is to stop believers from coming to mutually contradictory answers from their supposed communion with god?”

            A Standard that is reliable in doctrine and practice. Namely, the Bible. And it does not even have to be inerrant, only reliable on the major points. Just like a biography of say, George Washington, which would surely have errors in it, but be correct on the main themes. 🙂

            “Wouldn’t that impact the whole “objectively moral” aspect because, as far as these believers are concerned, each of their interpretation is the morally objective one?”

            Not at all. The fact that people believe different moralities to be objective is no warrant on the existence of an objective standard, anymore than the fact that people once thought the earth was flat (and some still do) is warrant against the earth being round.

            Now, the real question is this, Elie: what evidence do you bring forth for the No God Hypothesis? Are you an agnostic or someone who desires to have the mantle of “atheist?” And, if you are an agnostic, you must see a roughly equal weight of evidence for the No God Hypothesis which would counter the evidence for the God Hypothesis.

          • Elie Challita

            If you say so. Personally, I’ve found the secular / naturalistic explanations to be much more convincing.

            A little clarification: Agnosticism and atheism are different, but non-exclusionary positions. Agnostics do not know whether gods exist, whereas atheists do not believe that gods exist. I classify myself as both, and my atheism is in part driven by my agnosticism.

            That’s the thing: I don’t see an equal weight for the God hypothesis. I see a God hypothesis that’s been in constant retreat for centuries, and which left most places much the better for its passing.
            Even the many arguments which you claim as a victory for you only make sense inside of a religious paradigm.

            Take the problem of evil, for example. There’s little doubt that most of us would call certain people or behaviors evil, but frankly I think it’s an oversimplification to try and explain that in cosmic terms:
            1- Irrational events, like storms, cannot be defined as good or evil from a moral sense as long as there is no agency behind them. However, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent agency hanging around our universe, then it becomes a valid question to wonder why they allow it to happen.
            I’m not trying to answer the problem of evil: I’m saying it’s only even a question if one already believes in a deity.
            2- Human behaviors can certainly be classified as evil, but I doubt they can be classified so independently of circumstance, cause, effect, beneficiary, victim, etc. Murder is considered evil, for example, but murder in the defense of the self or others isn’t. The act itself didn’t change (dead is dead), and yet our perception of it did.

            Looking at other avenues: We used to attribute many events to divine action or intervention, only for newer discoveries to find completely naturalistic explanations. Religion originally claimed that God is directly responsible for drought or rain, yet retreated to “God made everything, so in a sense he’s responsible for drought or rain”. Simply put, the atheist position holds more weight for me, as an agnostic, because its position has yet to be disproved, compared to the theistic position which is increasingly resorting to mental acrobatics to defend itself.

          • savhcheshire

            Thank you WGC for a beautiful comment. I like being a Jesus freak. I’m not in a church right now either. I’m still looking but that’s what I love about the store where I work part-time. Whenever the other Jesus freaks come in, we have church right there in the store even if it just a few minutes. Where two or three are gathered together…….

            Have a Blessed and Wonderful day my friend.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen, Sav – we just keep on keeping on out there! We have a service on the sidewalk once a week (I designed it – pretty kewl!) and a time of fellowship at a restaurant afterwards. We also do a lot of praying and singing and Biblical discussions on the sidewalk every day, so, as you put it, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” — Matthew 18:20

            You have a Blessed and Wonderful day too, Sav!!!

  • FoJC_Forever

    The Darkness grows as the End approaches. The glorious Light of Jesus (the) Christ shines in those who know God and have been saved from their Sin. Those who follow Obama follow the path to Destruction.

    Abortion isn’t about healthcare, it’s about murdering a human life while it’s in the womb.

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

  • afchief

    Not only the worst and most evil president ever, but one of the worst and most evil Americans ever!!! This man should be in jail!!!!

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    He is not the most evil president ever, we must remember the slaughter of the Native Americans and slavery before we come to such conclusions. Personally, I think it would be best to ban partial birth abortion and make it legal only up to twenty weeks, this way the woman has to make a choice early on in the pregnancy and preserves the liberals rights to have at least some of what they want to happen. After this point, consider it a human and any abortion outside of potential death or severe injury to the woman and fetus should be considered murder. I know its controversial, but we can’t force our religious beliefs down everybody’s throats.

    • Mark B

      In Canada it was struck down (abortion) many years ago. Now, at 25 weeks unless there’s an urgent risk to the mothers life, they won’t abort. Many European countries are even stricter. The catholic church used to not call it murder if the heart wasn’t beating (changed around the 1830s).

      Your opinion corresponds to many. Put he money into prevention and education and you’ll have even less abortions.

  • Mark B

    They arent babies! Omg! You’ve got to be kidding me

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Of course they are babies, pre-born babies, just like you were referred to when you were in the womb, as every OB refers to the human in the womb:

      http://www .nlm .nih.gov/medline…

      http://www .mayoclinic .org/heal…

      http://www .babycenter .com/preg…

      http://www .parents .com/pregnan…

      http://www .webmd .com/baby/ss/s…

      http://americanpregnancy .org/w…

      Even the definition of “baby” includes the preborn:

      Baby [bey-bee] noun, plural babies.

      1. an infant or very young child.
      2. a newborn or very young animal.
      3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
      4. an immature or childish person.
      5. a human fetus.

      • afchief

        Great references!!!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Thanks, Chief! I got those from PJ4 over on LAN. She does not suffer pro-aborts gladly. 🙂

      • Mark B

        ? None of these links show information about when life begins.

        And here’s the real definition of baby:
        ba·by
        ˈbābē/Submit
        noun
        1.
        a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
        “his wife’s just had a baby”
        synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More
        2.
        informal
        a young woman or a person with whom one is having a romantic relationship (often as a form of address).
        “my baby left me for another guy”
        adjective
        1.
        comparatively small or immature of its kind.
        “a baby grand piano”
        synonyms: miniature, mini, little, small, small-scale, scaled-down, toy, pocket, vest-pocket, midget, dwarf; More
        verb
        1.
        treat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective toward.
        “her aunt babied her and fussed over her clothes”
        synonyms: pamper, mollycoddle, spoil, cosset, coddle, indulge, overindulge, nanny, pander to
        “her aunt babied her”

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          They do point out that you really were a baby when you were in your Mom’s womb – a human baby, not a giraffe baby.

          I’ve got dozens of these, Mark, but anyone with a basic biology understanding knows that human life begins at human conception:

          “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

          “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

          “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

          “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

          In summary, the beginning of life is determined by science, not by a person’s feelings or if he or she wants the child.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

    1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

    2. What is located in the human womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)

    3. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

    The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 3000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Why has our society turned its back on basic science and human decency?

    • Valri

      SECULAR HUMANISM
      Secular humanism is a non-religious worldview rooted in science, naturalistic philosophy, and humanist ethics. Rather than faith, doctrine or mysticism, secular humanists use reason, compassion and common sense to find solutions to human problems. We promote universal values such as intergrity, benevolence, fairness, and responsibility, and we believe that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made toward building a better world for ourselves and future generations.

    • Bob Johnson

      In point 2, could you please provide references for this “settled science”?

      Even if abortion becomes illegal, only one out of every four fertilized eggs (conception) will get a “Certificate of Live Birth”.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        I am surprised you never studied biology, Bob. Oh well:

        “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

        “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

        “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

        “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

        “Even if abortion becomes illegal, only one out of every four fertilized eggs (conception) will get a “Certificate of Live Birth”.”

        Bob, natural death in the womb no more justifies intentional killing in the womb than crib death justifies smothering infants in their cribs.

        • Bob Johnson

          You should read those books in their entirety, instead of quote mining from the introduction.

          • Valri

            But then, how could he deliberately mislead people using “peer reviewed” comments?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Seriously, Bob? You asked for science, I gave you science, and it hurts your feelings to be wrong? Or, you think that if one reads the entire book, it will magically contradict the most important points of the book as found in the introduction?!? 🙂

            So, since you have provided no peer-reviewed scientific evidence otherwise, I will take that as your admission that Premise 2 is correct.

          • Bob Johnson

            I asked for “settled science” and you provided three quotes. I find the embryological literature to be anything but settled. Yes, many place the point at conception, many place it several days later at implantation, and probably most embryologists contend there is no one point that you can point to.

            So the question is a moral and ethical question which the scientist can not answer. Not a matter for “settled science.” Here I must draw on philosophers and religion. Again there is a wide range of answers to the question of when life begins. I was taught that life begins when the Spirt of the Lord enters your body when you draw your first breath. It is the BREATH of God which lights your life and at that time the soul enters your body.

            And since you wanted references, I will point you to Scott Gilbert an Wesleyan University trained embryologist.
            http://www.swarthmore edu /past-commencements /scott-gilbert-baccalaureate-address

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Scott Gilbert – I love it!!! Oh, I beg you, Bob, please bring that over to Live Action news – I cannot WAIT to see what happens to it over there. 🙂

            I gave you four peer-reviewed textbook quotes on the settled science of when human life begins. You gave me a person’s opinion. (Valri gave me that same person’s opinion from RationalWiki once, and everyone on Live Action News laughed so hard we are still talking about it.) You seem to think that a person’s opinion or your feelings trumps settled science.

            The fact that human life begins at human conception is not negotiable, Bob, no matter how much it hurts your feelings or how much pressure it puts on you to change your false ideology. Pointing to philosophy or your religious superstitions in an effort to trump science does not speak well of your ability to form rational thoughts. But, it is no surprise that in order to deny being on the wrong side of the deaths of 60 million innocents, one must deny science and rational thought.

          • Valri

            Your fans on the fundie watch page laughed pretty hard themselves when you actually took issue with information taken directly from RationalWiki! Then again, you don’t exactly do yourself any favors when you invent words like “deathscorts”. Your mania is usually through the roof.

          • Valri

            You should know that sites like RationalWikii have the same effect on WorldGoneCrazy as garlic does on vampires – because it deals with reason and logic rather than faith-based Henny Penny sky-is-falling nonsense, it brings roars of derisive mocking laughter from his fellow zealots on sites like Live Action News.

            Don’t bother with that place. It’s like a gossipy schoolground or coffee klatch. All they do is shriek PRO ABORT!!! at people who might disagree with them about the smallest things.

        • Valri

          Here’s an article from WIRED magazine you should really read, Crazy:

          http://www.wired. com/2015/10/science-can’t-say-babys-life-begins