Archive for the ‘Molech’ Category

from CNS News:

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he’s “consistently pro-death” – and “not one of those people who thinks all life is precious.”

Even dogs can create life, he said in an Oct. 7 interview on satellite radio.

Maher explained his views on life and death when Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and host of StarTalk Radio, raised the death penalty.

“You support the death penalty, according to my notes,” Tyson said.  “Isn’t it largely Republican?  They may not have birthed the idea, but?”

“Yeah, I guess so,” Maher said.  “I mean I have a lot of ideas that you might consider conservative.  But I feel like on that, I’m just consistent, like the pope is consistent.  The pope is consistently pro-life; I’m consistently pro-death.”

“I am for the death penalty, although I do believe in more DNA testing,” Maher continued.  “My motto is, ‘Let’s kill the right people.’  I’m pro-choice.  I’m for assisted suicide.  I’m for regular suicide.  I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving.  That’s what I’m for.”

“It’s too crowded,” Maher continued.  “So, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

“When I look at the Venn diagram of people who are pro-death penalty and pro-choice, I don’t think they intersect,” Tyson replied. “You may be the lone person in the world at that intersection.”

“Absolutely not, I’ve met plenty of people who have the same feelings,” Maher said.

“I’m not randomly going around the street saying, ‘Hey we’re going to kill you,’” he said.  “I mean we’re talking about people who’ve earned it.  But as I say, you know, kill the right people.  Kill the right people.”

Maher then detailed how his views on abortion tie into his “pro-death” stance.  “I’m just not one of those people who thinks all life is precious, you know?  I bet you a lot of people wouldn’t say that, but if you’re pro-choice, maybe that’s really what you’re thinking anyway.”

“I mean this is the big controversy that Rick Santorum brought up,” Maher said.  “He does not like prenatal testing because he says that leads to abortion, because people find out that they’re going to have a child who is not normal in some way and they have an abortion because they don’t want to raise a child with severe challenges.

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that — to not bring someone in the world whose life is going to be so miserable in so many ways, so severely compromised,” Maher said.

“I mean it’s not that hard to create life, it’s teeming everywhere.  It’s something a dog can do.”

Read Full Post »

Great Faith and Great Courage!

“Gibbons has spent about 9 of the last 18 years behind bars for repeated violations of the injunction because she steadfastly refuses to accept a bail condition that requires her to stay away from the abortion facilities.”

from Life Site News:

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal by pro-life prisoner of conscience Linda Gibbons on Friday morning as she continues her 18-year battle to overturn a Toronto injunction banning pro-life activity outside of abortion facilities.

Gibbons was appealing a criminal charge of disobeying a court order by arguing that while the 18-year-old temporary injunction she is accused of violating was instituted by a civil court, she has since been tried in criminal courts.

Her lawyer, Daniel Santoro, argued that the Crown is taking her before the criminal court because the civil court would have the power to overturn the injunction.

But the Supreme Court agreed with the Crown in an 8-1 decision issued at 9:45 a.m. Friday.

Gibbons’s criminal charge was quashed by a lower court judge in January 2009 on the grounds that the matter was improperly heard in a criminal, rather than civil, court. But the Ontario Court of Appeal later overturned the ruling and reinstated her criminal conviction.

Gibbons has spent about 9 of the last 18 years behind bars for repeated violations of the injunction because she steadfastly refuses to accept a bail condition that requires her to stay away from the abortion facilities.

She told LifeSiteNews in 2011 that signing the bail papers would be like saying, “Yes I will cease defending innocent unborn children that are about to be killed.”

“If a two-year-old was being murdered next door, you’re not going to sit down and write a letter to your MP,” she explained. “When we’re having unborn children slaughtered at the rate we are in Canada, … should our lives go on as normal?” she asked in response.  “It’s not normal to live in the Holocaust and sort of pretend it’s not happening.”

The 1994 injunction was instituted by Bob Rae’s provincial NDP government amidst calls for a government crackdown against the pro-life movement after they were declared guilty by the media for the 1992 bombing at abortionist Henry Morgentaler’s Toronto facility. Charges were never laid in that bombing, however, and the prime suspect was the father of a child aborted at the facility.

Nevertheless, the injunction has had the effect of silencing pro-lifers’ freedom of speech, and effectively impeding the life-saving work of sidewalk counselors and vigil-keepers.

Gibbons told LifeSiteNews in 2011 that she will continue to challenge the injunction “as long as God gives me life and breath.  If I can get out of bed and put my feet on the floor, then I want to continue.”

“When we begin to suffer for the unborn, our identification with them, that’s when we’re going to impact society, when they see that,” she added.  “The Church is not hurting enough for the unborn.  When we start feeling their hurt in a real concrete way, then things are going to change, because then we’re saying very clearly that this cannot go on.”

Read Full Post »

2 Corinthians 11:13-15:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

from World Mag:

Wow. Sometimes Satan indulges in jaw-dropping capers.

I’m looking at a brochure from Six Rivers Planned Parenthood in Eureka, Calif. On it is an announcement from Humboldt County Clergy for Choice: “We are religious leaders who value all human life.” The flyer, for “40 Days of Prayer,” lists prayers such as: “Day 34: Today we give thanks for abortion escorts who guide women safely through the hostile gauntlets of protesters.” And “Day 38: Today we pray for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility.”

This is not a sick April Fools’ Day joke. The campaign continues through April 27 and includes gatherings celebrating “reproductive rights.” The prayers evidently come from a “voice for reproductive justice,” Faith Aloud, located in St. Louis. I learned about this from the legal group Liberty Counsel, which noted that “Planned Parenthood’s attempts to develop a ‘spiritual’ aspect to the pro-abortion argument can seem comparable to the religious leaders in Germany who supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”

Imitation is flattery, I suppose, and Planned Parenthood is recognizing the effectiveness of “40 Days for Life,” where prayer and pro-life effort has led to the closing of 22 abortion clinics, according to Liberty Counsel.

Other prayers during Planned Parenthood’s 40 days: “Day 4: Today we pray for the doctors who provide quality abortion care, and pray that they may be kept safe. … Day 5: Today we pray for medical students who want to include abortion care in their practice. May they receive good training and find good mentors. … Day 40: Today we give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.”

Safe for whom? Humboldt Clergy for Choice does not recognize the children killed by abortion. These children have no choice.

Read Full Post »

from The Sunday Morning Herald:

KILLING newborns is morally the same as abortion and should be permissible if  the mother wishes it, Australian philosophers have argued in an article that has  unleashed a firestorm of  criticism and forced the British Medical  Journal to defend its publication.

Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the  University of Melbourne, say a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack  of a sense of their own life and aspiration. They contend this justifies what  they call ”after-birth abortion” as long as  it is painless, because the baby  is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.

About  a third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed prenatally,  Drs Giubilini and Minerva say, and mothers of children with serious  abnormalities should have the chance to end the child’s life after, as well as  before, birth.

But this should also extend to healthy infants, the pair argue in the BMJ  group’s Journal of Medical Ethics, because the interests of a mother  who is unwilling to care for it outweigh a baby’s claims.

The academics call an infant, like a foetus, only a ”potential person”, but  they do not define the point at which it gains human status, saying this depends  on the baby’s degree of self-awareness and is a matter for neurologists and  psychologists.

Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, said the authors had received death  threats  since posting the article last week, via the publication’s own website  and online discussion forums.

His goal was ”not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is  to present well reasoned argument,” wrote Professor Savulescu, from the  University of Oxford. If others made a similarly refined case for  recriminalising abortion he would also publish that.

”What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication  in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it  has elicited …   Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.”

Steve Clarke, the chief executive  of the advocacy group Down Syndrome NSW,  said the paper was ”very theoretical”.

”I don’t think it does have any relevance or insight for the real world. It  is so beyond our social mores and values that it is beyond the pale and I  wouldn’t want to dignify it with any further comment,” he said.

Bernadette Tobin, the director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St  Vincent’s & Mater Health and the Australian Catholic University, said the  Melbourne academics should ”speak forthrightly” and use the word infanticide   if they wanted to persuade people that killing newborns and terminating  pregnancies were equivalent.

Read Full Post »

“While most Protestants do not oppose contraception per se, the letter calls the mandate a violation of religious freedoms.”

This is typcial of TODAYS protestant deonominations, they are too involved with anti-biblical positive thought ideologies to understand and defend true Biblical principles! You will not find ANY protestant denomination that has an issue with birth control, even though birth control is anti-Biblical!

from USA Today:

A group of evangelical pastors on Monday joined Roman Catholic clergy who oppose an Obama administration requirement that employees of religiously affiliated businesses receive birth control coverage.

Speaking at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said more than 2,500 pastors and evangelical leaders have signed a letter to President Obama asking him to reverse the mandate.

While most Protestants do not oppose contraception per se, the letter calls the mandate a violation of religious freedoms.

“This is not a Catholic issue,” Perkins said. “We will not tolerate any denomination having their religious freedom impinged upon by the government.”

The signers also object to a requirement that contraceptive coverage include the morning-after pill and other drugs and devices that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus to grow.

The mandate does not apply to houses of worship, only religiously affiliated institutions like universities, hospitals and nonprofits.

After an uproar about the birth control rules earlier this year, Obama offered a compromise two weeks ago in which insurers, rather than religious groups, would pay for the contraceptive coverage.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, promised to challenge the mandate both in court and in Congress.

“We are not going to stand by and allow our God-given rights, protected by the Constitution, to be atrophied, neutered, confined and restricted,” he said.

Read Full Post »

“Consumers have long been able to insert a few coins for the likes of aspirin, ibuprofen, antacids and other common over-the-counter remedies. But some experts see a worrisome trend in making drugs like Plan B, which is kept behind the pharmacy counter, available in a vending machine.”

YA THINK? As in maybe female college students being able to get an aborficant from a vending machine will see it on the same level as getting an aspirin from a vending machine to relieve a headache!

“Said Anna Franzonello, counsel to Americans United For Life: “Students at Shippensburg University deserve better than to have their administration represent the potent drug with life-ending potential as no more harmful than any other vending machine item.”

from msnbc:

Students at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania can get the “morning-after” pill by sliding $25 into a vending machine, an idea that has drawn the attention of federal regulators and raised questions about how accessible emergency contraception should be.

The student health center at Shippensburg, a secluded public institution of 8,300 students tucked between mountain ridges in the Cumberland Valley, provides the Plan B One Step emergency contraceptive in the vending machine along with condoms, decongestants and pregnancy tests.

“I think it’s great that the school is giving us this option,” junior Chelsea Wehking said Tuesday. “I’ve heard some kids say they’d be too embarrassed” to go into town — Shippensburg, permanent population about 6,000 — and buy Plan B.

Federal law makes the pill available without a prescription to anyone 17 or older, and the school checked records and found that all current students are that age or older, a spokesman said. It doesn’t appear that any other vending machine in the U.S. dispenses the contraceptive, which can prevent pregnancy if taken soon after sexual intercourse.

The machine has been in place for about two years, and its existence wasn’t widely known until recently. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is contacting state officials and the university to gather facts, agency spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said Tuesday.

The FDA’s sudden interest took place amid a furor over religious rights and access to birth control. An official resigned from the nation’s largest breast cancer charity Tuesday over Planned Parenthood funding, and Republican presidential candidates attacked the Obama administration for a recent ruling requiring church-affiliated employers to provide birth control.

Consumers have long been able to insert a few coins for the likes of aspirin, ibuprofen, antacids and other common over-the-counter remedies. But some experts see a worrisome trend in making drugs like Plan B, which is kept behind the pharmacy counter, available in a vending machine.

Alexandra Stern, a professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan, said she wasn’t questioning a woman’s right to have access to Plan B, but whether making it so easily available is a good idea.

“Perhaps it is personalized medicine taken too far,” she said. “It’s part of the general trend that drugs are available for consumers without interface with a pharmacist or doctors. This trend has serious pitfalls.”

Taking Plan B within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting regular contraception can cut the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. It works best if taken within 24 hours. Some religious conservatives consider the emergency contraceptive tantamount to an abortion drug.

The idea for a vending machine started at Shippensburg after a survey about health center services several years ago. Eighty-five percent of the respondents supported making Plan B available, school spokesman Peter Gigliotti said. The student government endorsed the idea.

The machine is in the school’s Etter Health Center, which only students and university employees can access, Gigliotti said in a statement. In addition, “no one can walk in off the street and go into the health center,” he said; students must check in at a lobby desk before being allowed in.

Students and administrators at Shippensburg said they’re puzzled that a single vending machine at a small school has attracted such attention. Matthew Kanzler, a senior, said a lot of students at the school weren’t even aware of the machine until recently.

Most students do support the idea, he said — but not all.

“It’s a way for students to get the help or care they need,” he said, adding that students appreciate the on-campus health care because the school, about 130 miles from either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, is so isolated.

In December, the Obama administration’s top health official overruled her own drug regulators and stopped the Plan B pill from moving onto drugstore shelves next to condoms and other items. It remains available behind pharmacy counters.

Denise Bradley, a spokeswoman for Teva Pharmaceuticals, which makes Plan B, said in a statement that it sells the product only to “licensed pharmacies or other licensed healthcare clinics, which are required to follow federal guidelines for the distribution of pharmaceutical products.”

On whether the machine might violate the law, “I don’t have a definite yes or no,” said Ron Ruman, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees the state pharmacy board. If a person younger than 17 used the machine, it “potentially could be a violation,” he said.

The drug isn’t covered or subsidized by the school. Its price at the vending machine is set by the school’s cost to the pharmaceutical company and is less than at off-campus pharmacies.

Deanne Hall, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, noted that the ease of access to such a machine could be positive for many women, but wondered whether self-treatment might deter sexual assault victims from seeking medical attention.

“This does open up a different door,” she said.

Rob Maher, a professor at the Duquesne University School of Pharmacy in Pittsburgh, said he had never heard of a vending machine dispensing Plan B, but noted that there have been vending machines in doctor’s offices, and even a specialized machine designed to fill prescriptions.

Still, he questioned whether the machine would make it possible for a young person to buy the drug without discussing their risk factors with a health care professional.

“That’s the big risk with a vending machine like this,” he said.

Carol Tobias, president of the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, said other services would be more appropriate.

“It would be a much more productive use of funds if universities would partner with local pregnancy resource centers where students can get real help if they need it,” Tobias said.

Said Anna Franzonello, counsel to Americans United For Life: “Students at Shippensburg University deserve better than to have their administration represent the potent drug with life-ending potential as no more harmful than any other vending machine item.”

Read Full Post »

I have not heard a single Protestant Christian Organization come out publicly and tell the government that they will not comply with this new regulation which forces Christians to deny their faith! What is up with that?

An interesting commentary on this article can be found here: The Entire Sad Contraception Issue Explained

Also read here about how the Japanese population is going to drop by one third in the next fifty years due to their love affair with contraceptives and abortions:

from The Blaze:

We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.

The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.

Over the weekend, the Catholic Church’s letter went beyond simply issuing oppositional rhetoric to media. Instead, priests read an open note to congregations across the country, dubbing the administration‘s take on women’s health and religious violations as an attack on their faith. In the letter, Bishops highlighted what they called “an alarming and serious matter,“ as their words contended that the federal government has ”dealt a heavy blow” to the Catholic population.

In it, Catholic leaders went on to say that the Church “cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” as it violates the Catholic conscience. Additionally, the church says that it is faced with a difficult decision — either comply and violate its faith or drop coverage for employees and suffer the consequences. The letter urges congregants to take action and to call Congress in an attempt to overturn the regulation.

Read Full Post »

This is the type of perverse thinking that begins to prevail when a society has went over the edge (pun intended) in its willful flight from God! The more and more I see today, makes me believe that western society at large because of its disobedience towards God has been given a strong delusion!

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12:

“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,  and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

From Bioedge:

Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.

This is the radical suggestion made by a leading British bioethicist, Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia.

Artificial gestation, or ectogenesis,  is currently science fiction, but it may be possible. Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:

Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.…

I suggest that there is a strong case for prioritizing research into ectogenesis as an alternative to pregnancy. I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.


Read Full Post »

from Earthlink:

Britain’s broadcast advertising body has given the go-ahead for private abortion clinics to advertise their services on television, angering those who say that the move desensitizes the public to the practice.

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice said late Friday there was no justification for barring private clinics that offer post-pregnancy services, including abortions, from advertising on television. Nonprofit post-pregnancy services are already allowed to advertise on television, and their for-profit counterparts are allowed to advertise in all other media.

The organization’s spokesman, Matt Wilson, said that “there is not going to be some sort of free-for-all saying: ‘Come to us to get an abortion.’ They are not there to promote abortion, they have to promote an array of services.”

Speaking to Britain’s right-leaning Daily Mail, Conservative lawmaker Nadine Dories said the move would allow broadcasters to make a profit “through advertising revenue off the back of a service which ends life. It’s appalling.”

British law allows abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, so long as two doctors agree that the procedure would cause less harm to a woman’s physical or mental health than carrying the fetus to term. There is no time limit in cases which pose a serious risk to the life of the mother.

Read Full Post »

from Pajamas Media:

Not aborting fetuses will soon be a crime in San Francisco.

At least that’s what the city government is pushing for in its bizarre new attack on pregnancy counseling centers.

Actually, “bizarre” is too mild a word to describe San Francisco’s latest outburst; even from my pro-choice perspective, the city’s attempt to essentially banish any counseling center which doesn’t encourage or perform abortions is simply beyond belief.

Yesterday, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Supervisor Malia Cohen acting on behalf of the municipal government launched a “coordinated attack” on pregnancy counseling centers that didn’t provide or advocate for abortions:

San Francisco leaders are launching a coordinated attack against what they call “one of the most serious threats to reproductive rights today” — so-called crisis pregnancy centers that advertise as though they provide abortions, but counsel against them.

In a joint press conference with Supervisor Malia Cohen, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the “right-wing, politically motivated centers” use false advertisements to target vulnerable populations and can cost women valuable time as they decide whether or not to end a pregnancy.

“Women’s reproductive rights are under assault,” Herrera said.

The two officials both took action against the centers Tuesday: Cohen introduced legislation that would prohibit centers from making misleading statements about the services they provide, while Herrera took the first step toward legal action against a center he accused of doing just that.

Cohen’s bill, which was co-sponsored by supervisors David Chiu, Jane Kim and Scott Wiener, would give centers that use misleading advertisements 10 days to correct the problem. After that, the organizations would either be fined or given a court order requiring them to comply.

Also on Tuesday, Herrera sent a letter to First Resort, a San Francisco center whose advertising he described as “particularly egregious.”

First Resort’s sponsored advertisement appears in the results of a Google search for the terms “abortion” and “San Francisco”.

When women search for terms like “abortion” and “San Francisco,” a Google ad sponsored by First Resort appears, even though the organization does not provide abortions or referrals for them, Herrera said.

The letter asks First Resort to change its advertisements and website by the end of August to clarify that it does not provide abortion services.

Hold on just a moment. Everybody freeze. What exactly is “First Resort” accused of doing wrong? Buying a Google ad? Let’s look at the specifics.

If you scour First Resort’s Web site, nowhere do they claim that they provide abortions, or even advocate for abortions. In fact, quite the opposite: they use various code words like “values” and “adoption” which make it pretty clear they’re coming from a “keep the baby” perspective in their counseling.

So what’s the problem? San Francisco’s municipal government apparently had a conniption fit over the placement of First Resort’s Google ad. In particular, if you Google the words “abortion” and “San Francisco,” the very top result is a listing for the First Resort clinic:

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: