Pro-Choice "Christians"

It strikes me funny how black people cry that that cannot be racists because they are not in power, yet be pro-choice. They cry racism, "institutional" racism. What is the problem with this statement? A pro-choicer is a RACIST. They believe that a women has the right to kill her baby. Who is in control? Who is the subject of racism? Black men and women who are pro-choice are racists in the worst way; against their own race. As for pro-choice Christians, you are racist against the IMAGE OF GOD. A pro-choice Christian is nothing more than a liberal, looking for the most minute reason to justify their positions. In essence, does God value life more than money in a secular society? Is God so aloof, that he is not concerned about a sinner's actions? Should the Christian desire money over morality? We can look at the Biblical examples of righteousness vs. greed. When you support pro-choice, yet desire money for your race, you have played the HYPOCRITE. They want money and resources pumped into the black community. Well, they need to ask the various abortion providers for $200,000,000 for 2006 for all the black women they support their right to choose. BLOOD MONEY! Remember that when you ask for it.

"Question 12
Developing the analogy with slavery, we might wonder how abortion is at all compatible with the idea that all human beings are equal. After all, it is inconsistent with equality that one person have his fundamental rights conferred upon him by someone else. Indeed, the phrase "conferring fundamental rights" has the appearance of an oxymoron. Consider how this worked in practice in the antebellum United States: when a white man freed a black slave, the black man would be "free" and enjoy "rights", yet even so, he would not, and he could not, be equal to the white man, for his freedom was originally granted to him by the white man. The reason for this is that, when one person grants rights to another, the former is a superior, the latter is an inferior, and they remain so, in spite of their both having rights, and even if this granting of rights is legally irrevocable.

Similarly, as we saw, in our current practice of legal abortion, the unborn child has rights only if they are granted by the mother. For if the mother wishes to have an abortion, then the child has no rights, and its death is considered inconsequential; but if the mother wishes to continue her pregnancy, then an attack on the child is considered unlawful and even murderous. Hence the child--and presumably also the adult who grows from the child--has rights only because they have been originally granted by the mother. But this, as we have seen, is incompatible with the fundamental equality of all human beings.

As a consequence, even though it may not be consciously recognized or understood, it must be practically impossible that people who are pro-choice regard the following generation as equal in dignity and worth to them. And I would suggest that many of the evident problems of the post-Roe v. Wade generations of children arise from this.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 13
Developing the analogy with slavery even more, we can ask: Why isn't legal abortion outright discrimination? I think "discrimination" occurs in its clearest form when someone bases a decision about another person's rights, privileges, or position, on some arbitrary and irrelevant feature of that other person. In its clearest form, perhaps, discrimination is practiced by one class of human beings against another, and the class that practices it benefits from it. For instance, if white persons, for their own advantage, treat blacks differently from whites, and deny them human rights, privileges, or positions, because of their black skin color, they are practicing discrimination.

But if we look at legal abortion objectively, doesn't it satisfy this description? By legal abortion, one class of human beings--born human beings--deny human rights and the protection of the law to another class of human beings--unborn children--because of a feature inessential to our humanity, viz. whether one is living inside or outside one's mother's womb. The difference between being unborn and being born seems just as accidental to a human being as the difference between having white and having black skin--as does the criterion of viability, which is arbitrary, external to the unborn child, and a function of the sort of medical technology available in the mother's community. (Abortion is thought to be justifiable before viability, because up to that time the fetus is completely dependent upon the mother. But why should someone's being completely dependent upon another imply that he or she can be killed? Suppose a mother and her newborn baby are stranded on a desert island. The baby is completely dependent upon her. How does it follow that the mother has a right to kill the baby?)

Question 15
But it is important that we not overstate our degree of ignorance. We know that the thing in the womb is alive: it has a heart beat from 2 weeks after conception; it has detectable brain waves from 6 weeks--and abortions don't take place before 6 weeks. So the thing in the womb is, at least, a living animal. And it might very well, from an early period, be capable of feeling pain--certainly it moves and responds to stimuli, and movement and perception, it might be argued, must be couple with some rudimentary ability to feel pleasure and pain. So then, I assume that you think that people ought to be compassionate towards animals. Perhaps you are even a vegetarian and opposed to killing animals on principle. How, then, can you consistently support legal abortion?

In every abortion the fetus is cut into pieces, ripped or torn apart, or poisoned. No one would want to treat a small kitten or puppy in that manner, nor does the law allow to do so, so why should we allow anyone to treat immature human beings in that way? Imagine that, instead of paying money for an abortion, the price was to take a newly born puppy, the size of a peanut, and put it in a meat grinder. This an action quite comparable to what takes place in an abortion. How many people would pay that price? Then is it only the hidden character of abortion that makes it seem acceptable?" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html
Email: glos_havebeenexposed@yahoo.com

I have personally decided and made known to the person I discussed the pro-choice agenda with to disfellowship them. I cannot and will not fellowship with another believer who believes a woman should have the LEGAL RIGHT to shed INNOCENT BLOOD. So if there is anyone who personally relates with me a is a fellow brother or sister in Christ, and you are pro-choice, I am willing to reason with you to the point you refuse to concede. AMOS 3:3

I CANNOT AND WILL NOT WALK WITH SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE MURDER, WITH NO REGARD FOR THE CHILD'S RIGHTS. DOESN'T THEIR BLOOD CRY OUT TO GOD?

The same justification being used to abort a child is the same used to delcare a black person as only 3/5 of a person. A fetus was not declared to be a complete person, and therefore is not ascribed the same right as a person outside the womb, even a half-second old. So BLACKS should be the ones fighting the hardest to see ABORTION/PRO-CHOICE abolished. Instead, BLACKS in the U.S. are killing their babies at a rate of 35%. Now I am not prejudice, but I am no fool either. Margaret Sanger had a plan. She's dead, but her legacy/plan is still working and effective TODAY.


I would like ALL BLACK Pro-Choice Christians to accept the 1789 Constitution where they were declared 3/5 a person. I would also like for ALL BLACK Pro-Choice Christians to personally accept the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and accept being the slaves they are and promote others to be.