Planned Parenthood - Predatory Fanatics

David Crary, Associated Press Reporter, filed an August 20, 2006 article about a nationwide push by anti-abortion activists to expand their foothold in heavily black and Hispanic inner cities.

My favorite part of the story, Anti-Abortion Activists Eye Inner Cities: Anti-Abortion Activists Aim Expansion Drive at Urban Blacks and Hispanics is the quote from a Planned Parenthood chapter president:

"Critics contend that pregnancy centers routinely mislead women seeking neutral advice on their options. A report in July from congressional Democrats said center counselors often overstate the medical risks posed by abortion.

Skeptics also argue that the same white conservatives supporting urban anti-abortion initiatives oppose other social policies that might help minority single mothers and their children.

"These predatory fanatics don't lift a finger to help the children who are born unwanted and unplanned," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, head of the Washington-area Planned Parenthood chapter.

"In these centers of deception, they leave young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer," she said. "They leave people even more vulnerable than when they walked through the door, without any information about how to avoid a future unintended pregnancy."

Predatory fanatics? And what is Planned Parenthood’s solution for helping children who are unwanted? To kill them. Problem solved.

Actually, it is Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger who championed eugenics as a way of racial cleansing, who preys on the most innocent, defenseless, and vulnerable members of the human community; the unborn child.

If we can kill unwanted children then can we also kill any child if they are no longer wanted? Where was Planned Parenthood when Andrea Yates no longer wanted her children? Their mouths runneth over with: “She’s a victim.” “Her husband should have known.” “She suffers from post-partum syndrome.”

Yates aborted her children. The only difference is that Yates’ act was done in full view of the world rather than hidden in a darkened womb.

Gaiter also errs about the centers leaving “young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer”. The volunteers show these women (and very often young teens) love; someone who cares. This may be the first time in that woman’s life she has actually received that.

But even more, the centers provide training and support for the parents to take responsibility for their actions, how to give love to another, and the confidence that they can persevere. Yes, even at great personal sacrifice.

In short, the pregnancy centers help these women develop character and integrity in their own lives. And they do so without ever asking the woman for money.

What help do these women receive after they leave the sterile confines of a Planned Parenthood clinic? The offer of a quick fix. The siren call to act only with oneself in view. To be selfish not selfless.

In short, Planned Parenthood offers these women the chance to continue in the way that brought them to this crisis in the first place. That character and responsibility are not important. Just show up at their door for future
unintended pregnancies and Planned Parenthood will solve all your problems.

Just make sure you bring the money.

Morally Equating Good and Evil

An actual post from an online discussion titled, "HOW TO piss off every living NEOCON":

You claim that "they want to kill us," yet you are exactly the same as they are,
because you want to kill them. You are EXACTLY the same as they are, you just
attach a different name to it because it makes you feel like you're not a
terrorist, but you are. You are morally equivalent to all the terrorists - you
are superior to no one.

This is a striking comment. This poster sees no difference between those who kill innocents on purpose to further their evil and those who kill innocents accidently to stop evil. Another poster responded with some of the acts the terrorists have committed such as intentionally targeting civilians, recruiting suicide bombers, planting bombs on babies, hacking off innocents heads, the Breslan school massacre, Bali night club, Bombay, Spain train and London subway bombings, etc. To which a third poster wrote:

"How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been killed by "collateral
damage" from bombing? Do you not suppose that the Iraqi and Lebanese civilian
population view this as an indiscriminate act of terrorism? The US and British
fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during WWII, which killed thousands of
innocent civilians, were acts of direct terrorism used to intimidate the general
population in hopes that they would not continue to support the military. Hd we
lost the war, the architects of those attacks would have no doubt been placed on
trial as war criminals. If the american revolutionaries had been able to blow up
parliament and kill King George, would that have been an act of terrorism?
Terrorism is not unique to muslims and eastern nations. A definition of it
depends entirely on where you are sitting at the moment.

Of course, this poster ignores facts like "How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been used as human shields by the terrorists."

The first and third posters have conceded that they are unable to make moral distinctions about good and evil. And yet they attack Bush as being evil because he invaded Iraq (they always seem to leave out with the blessings of Congress and the UN) and civilians are being killed. And they never use the same language for the terrorists.

So the ones who perpetuate evil and intentionally kill innocents are defended while those who try to protect as many innocents as possible while stopping the evil are considered the truly evil people.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute writes an interesting article, "What Would Jesus Bomb?" at The Christian Post.

Whitehead writes:

In a twisted play on the popular refrain "WWJD?"—What Would Jesus Do?—some anti-war activists have begun asking "What Would Jesus Bomb?" It is a question for which President Bush, a self-avowed Christian, seems to have no answer, at least if one were to judge by his authorization of bombing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and his silence over Israel’s latest military actions in Lebanon.

Yet most of the people I polled, a mixture of Christians and non-Christians, do not suffer the same confusion. "What or who would Jesus bomb?" they were asked. Their answers never varied: "Jesus would not bomb or kill anyone."

When pressed to explain, the responses ranged from "Jesus would have shown compassion rather than killing anyone" to "God is love" to "Jesus was always looking to love his enemies"—and so on.

On the surface this seems like an unanswerable challenge but, in fact, this objection to the war is faulty.

• The challenge refers to Jesus in his first incarnation where he would use the physical to point to a transcendent truth.
• He modeled the Kingdom of Heaven as an individual not a government official. This may be an argument against Christians going to war but it's not an argument against war.
• They exclude the Jesus of Matthew 25:31-46 where He sends the wicked to "eternal punishment".
• Christianity says Jesus is God. The same God of Love who directed the Israelites numerous times to go to war and kill everyone of their enemies.

Those using this challenge, invoke Jesus as Lamb while ignoring Jesus as Lion.
The article quotes Bonhoffer as evidence for the author's position:

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak."

Bonhoffer was executed because he tried to kill Hitler. So "who would Jesus assassinate?" Bonhoffer saw killing Hitler as a chance to save lives.

Lastly, "Who Would Jesus Bomb" during WWII or was trying (and eventually) saving the world from the evil and destruction of facism wrong? After all, if God is love and wouldn't kill anyone then He would have had to let Hitler (or any evil) continue unabated.

A Sunday Morning with Thee, Anger

Shortly after I commented on al-Zarqawi going out with a bang, I submitted "It's Beautiful" to The Columbian's Opinion page. Sunday morning, June 25th, The Columbian printed my letter. To summarize,

I compared Rene Belloq opening the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the Raiders of the Lost Ark and finding the beautiful being that transforms into something horrible that consumes and destroys him. I compared that to al-Zarqawi expecting to find the 70 beautiful virgins as a reward for the evil he committed. Then I speculated that upon seeing those beautiful virgins they morphed into "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice."

At 8 am (Sunday morning, mind you), my wife received a phone call (I was in Seattle) from an Allen:

Allen: Is Larry there?

wife: May I take a message?

Allen: Well, is Larry there?

wife: May I ask who's calling?

Allen: This is Alan?

wife: Oh, you mean Larry's friend Allen?

Allen: Can I speak to him?

wife: (at this point, wife realizes this isn't Larry's friend Allen) I'm sorry. He's not available?

Allen: You tell, Larry, that my God is not a Nazi! ... Larry's going to have to kneel before God someday. ...

wife: (hangs up)

A couple of things struck me about this call:

1) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to call at 8 am on a Sunday morning! I guess Allen needed to release his anger before attending church service.

2) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to yell at my wife when he found out I wasn't available.

3) Whose God was I calling a Nazi?!? al-Zarqawi's God? The one who rewards those who behead and blow up innocent people? People who don't agree with him? Let's see didn't the Nazis kill lots of innocent people? Even after rereading my post of published letter, I honestly don't see where Allen was comming from. Unless, of course, he worships al-Zarqawi's God. The one that sanctions terror against the innocent.

4) It takes an act of true courage to take your anger out on the wife of the person with whom you disagree. Especially when she had nothing to do with the letter. But Allen must have felt better since he hasn't called back.

5) Yes, someday, I will expect to kneel before God, a "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice" the crimes for which I am guilty. That is why I kneel before the cross of Jesus Christ. He has come to me, a capital criminal, and offered me a pardon for my crimes. So that on that fateful day the beautiful entity will morph NOT into a horrible creature that consumes me but intoHis even more beautiful, loving, compassionate presence.