January is Pro-Life month

January is Pro-Life month. Take this opportunity to create awareness in your local church by presenting a seminar on the subject. Alert your yound people to the holocaust of abortion.

You may also choose to participate in the battle against abortion by sending a special donation to organizations such as Tupelo Children's Mansion and New Beginnings, or your local Pro-Life charity.

To get better informed about the subject and be prepared when young ones come to you with questions get this amazing little book:

Why Pro-Life?

...

Why I will not vote for Barack Obama

Although many use pictures (some of them doctored - see above picture), cartoons, or slogans to alienate people from a candidate ("NObama," "Obama Sin Laden," "Obama/Biden/Laden"), we do not think those are acceptable. My reasons for not voting for Barack Obama have more depth, and yet are not complex.

Simply put, as a Christian I am devoted to God and His Word. God is pro-life, Obama takes very much the contrary position.

A very good article written by Robert P. George, who is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, states the following:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

The research done by Professor George uncovers things that no Christian would want to be associated with. You may want to read the complete article.* But here's some of the troublesome content:

"It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

"But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

"It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

"You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

"For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

"But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

"Can it get still worse? Yes.

"Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos."

As a Christian, I do not vote with my wallet in my mind, but rather, with the Bible in my hand. I do not only look for what will profit me, but for a leader for the United States that will stand for justice. The rights of the unborn are trampled by Obama at every turn. I can not support a candidate that would do that. I know Jesus wouldn't.

...
Please pass this information on to others who may be thinking of voting for Obama.

To see what abortion really does to an unborn baby, click here.

________________

* http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Refuting pro abortion arguments

The only differences between a fetus in the womb and a newborn baby can be remembered by the acronym S.L.E.D.

Size

Level of development

Environment

Degree of dependency

None of them are essential (that is, none of them have to do with "what" the fetus "is") and none of them make the fetus non-human.

Refuting pro abortion rhetoric is essential to the pro life cause. In this podcast we give you some foundational tools.

To listen to the podcast click [Here]

...

Planned Parenthood vs a baby's smile

April 18, 2007 - Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Supreme Court has reversed a decision it handed down in 2000 and upheld a Congressional ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. The ruling indicated that the federal ban on the abortion procedure did not violate the so-called right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court and indicated that the abortion advocates who sued to overturn the ban "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases."
President Bush signed the national partial-birth abortion ban into law in 2003 and abortion advocates took it to court in three separate lawsuits and federal courts in each case relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 and declared the ban unconstitutional.

Calling the decision a "dark day," for the fight to keep abortion legal, Planned Parenthood president Cecille Richards sent out a fundraising email to the abortion business' supporters just hours after the decision.

"Your immediate help is essential as Planned Parenthood responds to the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court decision," Richards wrote in the financial plea.

She claimed the high court "turned its back on more than 30 years of Supreme Court decisions" promoting abortion, despite numerous decisions uphold pro-life laws since the Roe ruling in 1973.

"There is no way we will let this stand," Richards warned, adding that "Planned Parenthood lawyers and medical experts are carefully studying the justices' opinions, searching out ways to ensure" that it can continue doing hundreds of thousands of abortions despite "this reckless ruling."

----

Hmmm. Let's see what the babies in peril of being killed with the partial birth abortion procedure think:




Sorry, "Planned Parenthood," I'll side with the babies on this one.

...