Amidst a constant news cycle trying to spread fear and terror to hurt the economy and Donald Trump, I wish I could write something that takes your mind off of notable current events and talk about something positive. Unfortunately, I found few, if any, stories that are positive that I could write about and, instead, I will write about something that makes my blood boil: the imprisonment of an innocent man as a result of deranged and immoral laws.
 
Now, before I begin, I would like to mention that Argentina has more decent laws regarding protection of human life than the United States does (I say this both happy that my country of origin is this way and ashamed and appalled that this country dehumanizes the unborn). In Argentina, abortion is largely illegal unless a pregnancy presents a health concern for the mother and/or the pregnancy was the result of rape. Still not great, but better than what we have in the States, with selective abortion and public officials destroying economic relief regarding the Chinese coronavirus so that the biggest genocidal group in the world, Planned Parenthood, can get some tax payer money. However, considering this story, those two exceptions in Argentine abortion law (particularly the second) should be eliminated and abortion made entirely illegal in the Latin American country.
 
Here’s why.
 
According to BioEdge: “An Argentine court has upheld the criminal conviction of a gynaecologist [sic.] who refused to abort the child of a rape victim in 2017. Dr. Leandro Rodriguez Lastra was sentenced to a 14-month suspended jail term, plus 28 months of disqualification from holding public office. Dr. Rodriguez Lastra will appeal.”
 
“The victim was a 19-year-old in her fifth month of pregnancy, the result of sexual abuse by a relative. At first she used an abortion drug provided by an NGO. That failed and she was referred to the hospital where Rodriguez Lastra was head of gynecology.”
 
“The doctor said that abortion posed a risk to both the unborn child and the mother. However, the judges said that the only thing necessary for a legal termination of pregnancy was a formal request from the rape victim. The child was later given up for adoption.”
 
So some good news, as the child is alive, but it is still ridiculous that the doctor would face criminal penalties for NOT taking another person’s life at the request of another.
 
If you want to be further outraged, read this:
 
“Faced with the intersection of so many vulnerabilities, the accused ignored the autonomy of the young woman, giving priority to the reproductive function that she symbolized as a woman, over her dignity, over her right to health and to be informed, accompanied, contained and respected in the process of interrupting the pregnancy, an interruption to which she had a right over any other right or interest… ignoring a woman’s voice, ignoring her vital needs, subjugating reproductive rights, devastating the psyche and enslaving the body in order to force pregnancy after a rape, means denying the victim’s status as a subject of rights and is the incarnation of gender violence in its most painful form.”
 
Wanna know where this came from? If you thought this was from a feminazi journalist in Argentina lambasting the doctor, I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that. This is a quote from the court’s ruling, from one of the justices presiding over the case.
 
Yep, the court’s ruling regarding the sentencing of Dr. Lastra sounds exactly like what some SJW, feminazi writer for Vox would put together, but it’s part of an actual legal ruling.
 
Take note of the language used here. Of course, the original is in Spanish, but the rough translation says it all. They accuse the doctor of ignoring “the autonomy” of the young woman and “giving priority to the reproductive function that she symbolized as a woman.” If the doctor’s intention was to save both the baby and the young woman, which BioEdge said it was, that’s outright SLANDER from the COURT.
 
First of all, no one has autonomy. We have free will, but that’s different from autonomy. Autonomy means that we are bound by nothing other than ourselves and our own belief systems. That we have the right to choose whatever we want without consequence. That nothing and no one can control us. But if we are autonomous, that means that God is not omnipotent, as He has no control over us, and therefore, is no God at all. The young woman does not have autonomy. She has free will, but not autonomy.
 
Second, the doctor wasn’t prioritizing the woman as a sex object. That’s actually ridiculous! He was prioritizing the lives of the baby and the mother. He’s not the stereotypical depiction of a man that feminazis have, where he sees women as nothing more than sex objects. He’s not Hollywood and he’s not Bill Clinton; he’s a decent person from what little we know about him.
 
Third, while I know this was a translation, take a look at the word “interrupt”. The Spanish word for interrupt is “interrumpir”, so they mean the same thing. To “interrumpir” or interrupt, implies a temporary pause and a continuation later down the line. Abortion isn’t an “interruption” of a pregnancy; it’s TERMINATION. It’s MURDER.
 
The court, especially with that last bit after the ellipsis, makes the doctor out to sound exactly like he was the one who RAPED the young woman. The rapist, not the doctor, ignored the woman’s voice. The rapist, not the doctor, ignored her vital needs. The rapist, not the doctor, subjugated her reproductive rights. The rapist, not the doctor, devastated her psyche and enslaved her body. And yet, they say all these things ABOUT THE DOCTOR WHO REFUSED TO END A KID’S LIFE!
 
Now, I know what some Leftists might try and yell at me. “Does that mean you don’t care about a woman who was RAPED?!” For which I say: “shut up, you know that’s not the case and you don’t care about the life of a human being, so you have no right to judge me at any capacity.”
 
Of course I care about the woman who was raped. I feel sorry for her. She’s a victim of a horrendous injustice here. However, abortion is not a solution by any stretch of the imagination. Do you know what abortion in this circumstance does? Validates the rapist’s actions. The young woman was raped by a relative. Said relative could rape her again or someone else entirely. Eliminating the life of the child not only is actual murder, as it is scientifically undeniable that the child is alive in the womb, but allows for evidence of the rape to be eliminated as well, leaving the relative free to rape once again.
 
A DNA test would prove the child is the relative’s, thus proving the rape, and would throw the guy in jail. Eliminating the child means eliminating the evidence and that means allowing the rapist to walk free. How exactly is that a better alternative? If the young mother doesn’t want the child, give it up for adoption, as she ultimately did, thankfully.
 
But don’t seek out an abortion. A doctor who refuses to eliminate proven life in the womb should not be punished for DOING THE RIGHT THING. Abortion is never the answer because abortion will never not be murder.
 
It is despicable that a doctor who only thought of doing the right thing, certainly in the eyes of God, would be considered as doing evil in the eyes of the government. It is despicable that he should face any sort of punishment for NOT ending someone’s life.
 
I hope and pray that the doctor’s appeal is successful and he does not have to suffer any more than he has for doing the right thing.
 
Galatians 6:9
“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap; if we do not give up.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Before I begin, let me elaborate that what I mean by “obsolete” is not that I think it ought to be re-written or updated by any stretch of the imagination. I want that damned thing out of U.S. law books and every practicing abortionist in this country thrown in jail for the genocide that they willingly and knowingly perform day in and day out, with Planned Parenthood thrown into the dustbin of history alongside the KKK and forever marred as an utterly evil, soulless organization. What I mean by “obsolete” is that the language it uses in supporting a woman’s “right” to abortion is no longer enough to try to justify it.
 
Allow me to explain. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear today a case considering whether or not a Louisiana abortion law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges (the ability of a doctor to admit a patient to a nearby hospital) for hospitals within 30 miles of an abortion clinic is constitutional. The reason for this is that abortionists are currently not required to admit patients into a hospital and can simply perform an abortion pretty much immediately. Wouldn’t you know it, pro-murder people find trouble with this and believe it interferes with a woman’s “right” to kill her own baby.
 
The Court, according to Breitbart News, “will also consider whether abortion businesses have the legal right to file lawsuits that challenge abortion health and safety laws in the name of their own abortion patients.”
 
The Illinois Right to Life (IRL) is among many pro-life organizations that have filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court. IRL’s program director, Dr. Steven Jacobs, wrote the brief for the organization. He told Breitbart News:
 
“Most briefs have argued that abortion organizations and clinics shouldn’t have standing to sue, but our brief is among the briefs of the Senators and Congressmen arguing that Roe v. Wade should be re-examined.”
 
“While they argue that the undue burden standard has been found unworkable, we argue that legal, scientific, and social developments show that the factual underpinnings of Roe have so changed as to have made it obsolete and argue for the constitutional rights of fetuses.”
 
What the good doctor is getting to is that the language used by Roe to justify abortion, specifically about how ambiguous the definition of “person” was at the time (1973), is utterly obsolete in this day and age for a variety of reasons.
 
As Jacobs explained, there is scientific consensus regarding the point at which life begins. That’s right, unlike the ridiculous climate change “consensus” of 97% or whatever the figure was, there actually is a REAL consensus among biologists about when life begins.
 
You see, according to Jacobs, “Roe dismissed Texas’ argument that fetuses had rights because there was no consensus on when life begins in 1973 and fetuses were not recognized as persons in most legal contexts, back then. Today, we know there is a scientific consensus that shows a human’s life begins at fertilization and fetal homicide laws show that most states recognize fetuses as human persons at fertilization.”
 
The argument Roe had made about a fetus not being a person is that the 14th Amendment did not clearly define a person (though I have talked about this in the past and argue that it still protects human fetuses). However, since 1973, scientific advancements have been made that clearly show the humanity of a person in the womb. We have sonograms, both in 2D and 3D, that show us a live feed of the baby in the womb. We have proven that a fetus can feel pain and scream when it is being aborted. If you remember, back in March of 2018, I wrote an article about someone I considered to be evil incarnate, Leah Torres, an abortionist who said she transects “the cord first so there’s really no opportunity [to scream].” They don’t scream because she DOESN’T LET THEM, not because they have a physical inability to do so (provided they have a larynx).
 
But we know that they feel pain beginning at the 20th week of conception, maybe even a bit before (some say roughly around 18 weeks). Abortion is murder and science has proven it, but people reject the science they don’t like for their personal feelings or benefit where it applies.
 
Back in 2019, Jacobs authored a bombshell of a study that found 80% of Americans believe biologists should decide the question of when life begins. Well, among more than 5,500 biologists (a massive sample size), 96% of them affirmed that life begins at fertilization, or conception.
 
I wonder if the Left, who apparently loves scientific consensus, would drop their evil arguments for abortion upon finding this out. Actually, I don’t wonder that at all because they would not. Abortion is a big political issue for them and it helps them out in some cases. They are trying to normalize it and justify it, even when increasing scientific evidence showing that fetuses are human piles up. But there is no mistaking it: Roe v. Wade should be overturned on moral, just and scientific grounds.
 
Jacobs continued in his comments:
 
“Since Roe said that abortion rights collapse if it is shown that fetuses are persons (p. 29 of the brief), since Justices have said that fetuses would have rights if it is shown that fetuses are humans (p. 29 of the brief), and since Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that the Court would have to overturn Roe if a change to the facts robbed it of its original justification (p. 8 of the brief) – fetuses’ constitutional rights should be recognized and Roe should be updated or overturned.”
 
Jacobs also summarized: “things have changed since fetuses were not recognized as biological humans at fertilization or legal persons in 1973.”
 
Jacobs also observed that situations have changed for women since the 70s. “The Court was told that ‘a woman, because of her pregnancy, is often not a productive member of society. She cannot work. She cannot hold a job. She’s not eligible for welfare. She cannot get unemployment compensation’ (p. 6 of the brief). However, recent legislation and government programs have addressed many of those issues (p. 23-24 of the brief) and women can give their children up for adoption or use the protection of safe haven laws to leave their infant at a police station or a fire station.”
 
Legislation like the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows working mothers to take maternity leave, being paid in full, and take care of their children in that time period. Women have plenty of financial and other abilities to take care of their children, and even if they still feel they cannot afford a child, giving children up for adoption is also an alternative. Simply put, there is no medical, financial or social reason for a mother to kill her own child.
 
If Roe were to be a court decision today, there would be absolutely no reason for the Court to say it is constitutional. There is no medical reason to say that a fetus is not human, as science has proven that it is and that its personhood lies under the personhood described by the 14th Amendment. There is no social or financial reason to allow for abortion given the advantages women have in those areas in this day and age, as well as the options apart from killing the baby.
 
It is no person’s right to kill another, unless for self-defense. When an abortionist aborts a fetus, he or she is committing murder. When a woman goes to an abortion clinic seeking to abort her child, she is trying to get someone to kill her baby. When someone argues in favor of abortion, they advocate for the genocide of millions of children in the womb.
 
Roe v. Wade is evil, should be overturned and be remembered with the same horrified and disgusted scorn as we view the Dredd Scott decision, if not more.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We have, for a long time, discussed just what were Margaret Sanger’s intentions in funding pro-abortion organizations: the control and elimination of other races, who are deemed “inferior” and “weaker”. This has been Planned Parenthood’s, and Leftists’, objective, though they do not really tend to be open about this. In a recent climate change townhall, however, Bernie Sanders essentially admitted that that’s what he wants to do as President of the United States.
 
During the townhall, a woman whom CNN identified as a teacher (and this terrifies but doesn’t surprise me at the same time) said the following: “Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years; the planet cannot sustain this growth. Empowering women, and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you (speaking to Sanders) be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”
 
Okay, before we get to Sanders’ answer (no points for those who can guess it), allow me to address this horrible woman’s question. First, while the Earth’s population did double in the last 50 years, we have only seen a DECREASE in poverty and NEXT TO NO FAMINES outside of socialist hellholes like Soviet Russia.
 
We are not overpopulated in the least. As I said in an article from early January of this year, the overpopulation argument stems from the heavily-flawed Malthusian theorem, wherein the theorem suggests that populations increase exponentially while food grows arithmetically, which is far from the truth, even for Malthus’ own time.
 
Ignoring the fact that technology has made it so that a lot more food can be grown by a lot less people (farmers make up less than 2% of the U.S. employment numbers and can still grow enough food to send out not only to the rest of the country, but also other countries that buy our products), the theorem itself is based on pretty much nothing. More people means more food that can be grown.
 
What’s better, having one person growing as much food as he can, or having 100 people grow as much food as they can? If populations increase exponentially, so does food (and we’re only talking vegetables here, not even farm animals).
 
So the idea that we are overpopulated is entirely erroneous. What’s worse, however, is the insistence that we must be able to “control” (in other words, eliminate) populations so as to not run out of food. This is what this teacher (and I can’t believe she is one, but again, also not entirely surprised) is asking for and this is what Bernie Sanders answered:
 
“The answer’s ‘yes’. Women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement – which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control – to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it’s something I very strongly support.”
 
Now, I have a lot to say about this. First, I find funny how he just feels the need to pander as much as possible. “Women… have the right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.” Who exactly gives them that right? It’s nowhere in the Constitution, and it’s most definitely not in the Bible. Someone doesn’t have the right to something just because you say they do (and no, I’m not forgetting about the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade).
 
Second, notice the emphasis on controlling poor people’s populations. HE is the one saying women in poor countries don’t “necessarily want to have large numbers of babies”. How exactly does he know that? But what’s more, why specifically target poor people? Well, to be fair, that one is very much a rhetorical question. Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, those who are statistically more likely to be poor, regarding where they set up locations and are already controlling their populations. Since 1973, nearly 20 million black babies have been killed in the U.S. That’s a little less than half of the current black population in America (at least according to the 2010 census). Planned Parenthood is already systemically controlling the black population of America and now, these Leftists are demanding that we use OUR TAXPAYER MONEY to fund EUGENICS around the world, particularly in poor countries?
 
Finally, I would simply like to point out a particular word that Bernie used here. Let me write what he said once again: “women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies…” Notice that last word there? This guy fully recognizes that the kind of people he intends to target are babies. When the shooting in Odessa, Texas happened earlier this past week, the Left had been trying to point out how a 17-month-old baby had been injured in the shooting. Tragic as that is, let’s not beat around the bush: they do not care about that baby. 17 months earlier, they would argue that it didn’t have the right to life and that it wasn’t even human. So when is a baby a baby? These people don’t answer that because they have no answer. There are those who argue in favor of killing the baby even AFTER it is born, such as current Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam.
 
These people realize very much that what they are killing are human babies. Argue as they might against it, they know these are babies for a FACT. And yet, they argue that it’s “women’s rights” or “women’s liberation” or even that it’s “necessary to fight climate change” to kill babies.
 
My friends, these are not sane people. These are not good people. These people are pagans, sacrificing children to appease a god of their own creation: mother nature. And they think it’s perfectly reasonable to do all this, not because it actually is reasonable, but because they have no heart – no soul – to tell them right from wrong.
 
They support this because they see it as right in their own eyes and not because they believe it is right in God’s eyes (and it definitely isn’t).
 
Killing children isn’t going to “solve” climate change any more than banning meat or gas-powered cars or whatever communist plan these people shared in that townhall because WE DO NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE AND CANNOT AFFECT IT SIGNIFICANTLY! Everything these people say is going to happen is utter bullcrap. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN SAYING THIS SAME CRAP FOR DECADES AND NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS HAPPENED!
 
The glaciers aren’t melting, there isn’t a hole in the ozone layer, coastal cities aren’t going to get flooded, massive droughts and famines aren’t happening and we are not CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE! In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. hasn’t even seen any warming since 2005. And yet, Obama has gone on record pretty much year after year saying how that particular year was the “hottest year to date” as though he had the data of THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET to back up that claim.
 
Nothing the Democrats have suggested will do a darn thing to affect climate change because we can’t do anything to it. The funny thing, though, is that even if we did have the power to do that, Democrats’ plans wouldn’t do anything anyway. AOC’s former chief of staff said that the GND wasn’t about climate change but about changing the economic system of the U.S. Makes sense, considering it costs $93 TRILLION according to some estimates and it would bankrupt us almost immediately, all-the-while giving the government all the power in the world.
 
But as bad as trying to ban meat might be, to me, an even worse idea is to suggest we start killing people, particularly poor people, to combat climate change. And if you think abortion is as far as they would go, think again. The teacher brought up the question on the basis that THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. Abortion would only be the first step, followed by genocide.
 
This is the sort of thing that has led to people like Hitler to commit massive atrocities like the Holocaust. Only, instead of suggesting to kill all Jews and all non-Aryan people, they are suggesting killing minorities and poor people. First, those who have some sort of disability (as is the case in Europe, where they abort babies who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome), then some sort of illness (illnesses as defined by the state) and then on to poor people and other “undesirables”.
 
Of course, the only people that get to not be killed are the rich, white liberals who think themselves gods. These people are demons in the flesh and they’re just getting started laying out the policies of Satan.
 
Shame on that teacher, shame on the audience who clapped after Bernie gave his answer, shame on Bernie Sanders, shame on the Democrats who agree with him (wouldn’t be surprised if that’s all of them), and shame on anyone who tries to argue that we, Christians and conservatives, are the evil and intolerant ones.
 
James 1:21
“Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While Planned Parenthood still, for some reason, receives much more money from the federal government, it took a massive blow this past week when they chose genocide over continuing Title X services, which serve the needs of low-income Americans.
 
According to The Daily Wire, “The Trump administration had implemented a rule stating that any clinic accepting Title X funds must not refer women to an abortion provider or suggest where to get one.” The New York Times added: “The move could affect more than 1.5 million low-income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like birth control, pregnancy tests and screening for sexually transmitted diseases.”
 
The good news for those low-income women, of course, is that hospitals and other clinics that are not PP also provide those types of services and comply with Title X rules and regulations set by this administration.
 
In choosing to stick to mass infanticide, Planned Parenthood will lose $60 million in taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, they make a lot more than that in general, having reported almost $245 million in excess revenue for 2017-18, but this does a couple of things:
 
     1) Planned Parenthood will lose some money, which is always a good thing. 

    2) Some babies will likely be saved as a result. 

   3) It further shows Trump to be one of, if not the most pro-life President we have had in ages. 
 
Fox News reported that “Planned Parenthood’s pullout followed a June order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the new rule. The court’s three-judge panel, with two judges appointed by President Trump, is still weighing Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit to overturn the rule but has allowed the administration to begin enforcement – a sign that the administration will ultimately win on the merits.”
 
While there is still more work to be done to fully defund Planned Parenthood, this is definitely a step in the right direction to doing that and yet another sign of Trump making and actually keeping the promises he made during the 2015-16 campaign trail.
 
Following the news, Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, told Life News: “It’s a great day for women’s health in America. Planned Parenthood is America’s deadliest nonprofit, and the news that they’re refusing to accept taxpayer funds to target vulnerable women is a good thing for women’s health. Women deserve the chance to live empowered, full lives that are free from the harms that Planned Parenthood poses through abortion and abortion-focused services. Women who need true healthcare will have their needs met by authentic and eager healthcare providers across America.”
 
And that’s another point: Leftists will argue that PP helps with women’s healthcare issues like getting mammograms, checkups, pregnancy tests, etc., and as a result, they argue that PP is necessary and good for women, but hospitals, other clinics and even pharmacies provide the same services. Planned Parenthood will use these things as a cover for suggesting that they are women’s health providers when they are nothing more than a glorified slaughterhouse. Their main objective, as is clear from pulling out of Title X funding, is abortion. They care nothing of women or their healthcare, but to make money off of women’s poor sexual decisions. They take advantage of women, particularly low-income women, who do not feel they are capable of raising a child, and so suggest they get an abortion. That is what Planned Parenthood was doing with their Title X patients and the rule change regarding those kinds of suggestions puts that mission in peril, which is why they chose to forego Title X.
 
This PROVES they don’t care about women’s healthcare AT ALL. They only care about taking advantage of vulnerable women and killing as many babies in the womb as they can, seeing as they can make a huge profit off of their blood.
 
To them, killing children is more important than providing REAL health services to women. Seeing as they reportedly provided over 330,000 abortions in its latest annual report, it’s quite obvious that their main trade is the blood of the innocent. No longer can anyone even try and make the claim that Planned Parenthood is about providing women with healthcare. They made their choice here (no pun intended) in choosing abortion over Title X service of low-income women. If they are not allowed to kill poor people’s children, they leave. They never cared for the millions of women they serviced. Their only target was the life growing inside the pregnant women.
 
I imagine Satan is very proud of these child-killers.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Late last week, a female British judge “ordered a pregnant woman who reportedly has developmental disabilities and a mood disorder to have an abortion, even though the woman and her mother allegedly strenuously object,” reported The Daily Wire.
 
The Catholic News Agency reported that the pregnant woman in question is 22 weeks pregnant, is described as being “in her twenties”, is Catholic with a mother from Nigeria and “has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child,” according to The Daily Wire. CNA also said: “The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter.”
 
Justice Nathalie Lieven of the Court of Protection is the one who presided over the ruling and ultimately ordered the abortion, citing: “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion… I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.” But wait, there’s more. Not only is she a massive hypocrite for taking away the woman’s choice on this matter (something that would be considered a cardinal sin for the Left if the ruling had ordered a woman to keep a baby she wouldn’t want), but she then goes on to insult the woman’s intelligence by saying: “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.”
 
So she’s not only a massive hypocrite and murderer but she is also deeply insulting of the woman being ordered to kill her own child. Look, I don’t know the pregnant woman in question on a personal basis (she is unidentified), but if she is adamantly against the order of aborting her own child, I seriously doubt she considered her own baby to be in any way similar to a “nice doll”. I think she understands very well that what she is carrying inside her womb is a baby and that she very much wishes to have said baby and is (or was) heartbroken over the decision from the judge that she had to terminate the baby she wanted to keep.
 
But rejoice, everyone, as the public outcry that resulted from that decision has led the English Court of Appeals to overturn the original judge’s decision.
 
The Catholic News Agency reports that Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overruled the June 21st decision made by Justice Lieven. The original decision reportedly triggered more than 75,000 people to sign a petition from Right to Life UK asking U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to “intervene in this case, so far as possible, to prevent this gross injustice being inflicted by the State on this family and ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion.”
 
Bishop John Keenan of the Diocese of Paisley also encouraged people to sign the petition, stating the original ruling “introduces a dangerous new development in the overreach of the power of the state over its citizens.” Another bishop, Bishop John Sherrington of the Archdiocese of Westminster said: “Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child. In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state. This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”
 
Both bishops are absolutely right. That original decision was a gross overreach by the government, not unlike the Chinese communists, in infringing the rights of a woman. But this is the danger of big government. They get to decide what is in your “best interests” should you reportedly lack the mental capacity to apparently make your own decisions (even though the woman is adamantly explaining she wishes to keep her child). The government gets to decide whether or not your child gets to live if you are deemed not capable, in any way, of taking care of the child, which is seriously moronic. “Well, you see, Karen, you are incapable of making decisions for yourself and would not be able to properly take care of your child, so we’re gonna have to kill it for ya, how does that sound?” That’s the sort of logic trail people like Lieven (not even going to include her title since there was no justice at all in her decision) use when it comes to abortion: better the baby be killed than it perhaps live a poor life even with the chance to live a good one.
 
It’s not only asinine, it’s outright demonic. It’s the sort of thing pagan cultures would do on a regular basis: child sacrifice. And like pagan cultures, these pro-abortion people in the government do it to please false gods: themselves.
 
How is it in the woman’s best interests to force her to eliminate a child she wants to keep? May I also remind you of the fact that the woman, among developmental disabilities, also has a mood disorder? Meaning that there is an even greater chance of sending the woman into a deep depression upon forcing her to eliminate her own child. So how exactly is that decision being made in the woman’s “best interests”?
 
The answer, of course, is it’s not. It’s acting in the government’s best interests, as they are the ones who also get paid for the abortion occurring in the first place at one of the government-owned abortion facilities. It’s also acting in the government’s best interests by setting a precedent for this sort of thing. If the government wishes to eliminate your child for whatever reason and you say no, well there’s really nothing you can do because the government would’ve had this decision as a basis for future decisions. Granted, I highly doubt this is the first time the U.K. government has forced a woman to eliminate her child, but this could’ve still set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
 
Of course, the government, if unchecked, will do whatever it wants regardless of precedent, but it is good that this issue was so widely talked about to the point higher judges in the U.K. legal system had to intervene.
 
But this is merely a preview for where the Left wishes to take us next. The only reason being “pro-choice” is so popular is because people like having a choice as to what to do. But as we can see from this example, there are plenty of people on the Left who are not “pro-choice” at all if the choice being made is not the “right one” in their minds. You don’t get to choose what school to send your kids to, you don’t get to choose what politician you want to win elections (*ahem* Google *ahem* the Obama administration *ahem*), you don’t get to choose to follow your religious beliefs if it is perceived that they are discriminatory to someone else, and as was the case for this pregnant woman, she did not have the choice to keep her child apparently because she’s too stupid, in the mind of the government, to keep her child and live a good and happy life.
 
These people aren’t about choice but dominance. There is a very good reason I said they view themselves as gods in the comparison with pagan cultures who would perform child sacrifices. They see themselves as gods in control of everything and everyone, or at least they believe they ought to be given said control. I’ve said this before, but it’s plenty relevant right now: for people who claim not to believe in God, they sure try hard to be like one.
 
But thanks be to God that He reigns supreme and the forces of evil could not take the life of an unborn child this time. Thank the Lord that He caused this story to be so widely spread and found so horrid that higher Justices in the U.K. legal system were moved to intervene in this matter. I just hope this serves as a wake-up call for the people of the U.K.: their government has gotten too big for their own good if they can force abortions on women who don’t want them.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday, we looked at an argument the Left often makes about climate change, that man-made climate change causes severe weather events like hurricanes and the like. However, we found that nothing could be further from the truth and there is no actual link between climate change itself and extreme weather. Similarly, the Left makes the argument that abortion reduces crime rates, but that one is not only wrong (and we will see why that is in a moment), but is rooted in racism.
 
Dr. Brian Clowes is a pro-life researcher working for Human Life International and recently had an interview with LifeSiteNews discussing a research paper by economists John Donohue III and Steven Levitt titled: “The impact of legalized abortion on crime over the last two decades,” which is a paper that expands upon a study they published back in 2001 that essentially claimed the same things – that abortion reduces crime rates.
 
What the economists found is that crime rates dropped after 1973, which is something Clowes acknowledges in the interview. However, he asserts that the reason for this is “not because fewer people were born but because fewer people in the 25-40 age bracket were committing a crime. This was partly due, [Clowes] said, to improved police techniques and a reduction in the widespread use of crack cocaine.”
 
So there are two things to note here. First, older people were committing less crimes at least in part due to improved police techniques, improvements in technology and an overall reduction in the use of hardcore drugs such as cocaine, which really exploded in the 1980s. This much makes sense, as improving police techniques often leads to good results that impact crime rates in a good way.
 
The second thing to note is the actual age bracket used here: 25-40. Statistician David Murray, whom Clowes cites, confirmed that the majority of crimes committed in the U.S. are by males between the ages of 17 and 25. Both Clowes and Murray assert that if abortion truly did reduce crime rates, the number would have dropped in that age range first, not in older ranges, which is what the economists found.
 
Back in 2001, when the report was first released by the economists, Murray told Fox News that homicide rates did drop among that age group, but aggravated assault among that age group increased. While I don’t exactly have the data, it stands to reason that at least part of the reason for this is an improvement in the medical field to treat wounds that otherwise would’ve been fatal. And again, police techniques can also be attributed, at least to some extent. The point is that while one type of crime was reduced, a different type, which can often lead to the first type, increased significantly, rendering the economists’ findings irrelevant at best.
 
But there is one other major component that we must take into account when talking about this issue whatsoever. And that component is the simple fact that while the economists recorded a drop in crime rates int the U.S. since Roe v. Wade passed (which is really more correlation than causation, as far as we can see), similar data was not replicated outside the U.S.
 
What do I mean? Well, the United Kingdom legalized abortion in 1968. But according to LifeSiteNews, “Eighteen years later, crime was increasing across the country, precisely when Donohue and Levitt’s analysis would have predicted a decline.” The same could be said of Russia, which, despite the fact they have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (37.4 per 1000 women aged 15-44 as of 2010) with a peak of 5.5 million abortions performed in 1965, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, violent crimes in the country skyrocketed.
 
So not only do abortions not seem to cause a decrease in crimes, other countries in the world with far higher abortion rates and legalized abortion for longer periods found themselves with HIGHER crime rates than before. I won’t go as far as to say that abortions cause crime (though abortions help rapists get rid of the “evidence” of their misdeeds), but abortion seems to not have anything to do with decreased crime rates. Countries that have had legal abortion for longer periods of time than the U.S. and have higher rates of abortion don’t seem to see any drop in crimes at all.
 
And now, let’s get to the part about how that study is rooted in racism, shall we?
 
Clowes noted that murder rates among African Americans skyrocketed by more than 500% from 1984 to 1993 despite the fact that African American women have abortions three times more often than white women do. Yet another example of the rates absolutely going the opposite way that the pro-abortion economists claimed they would go.
 
Clowes then went on to assert that both studies reflect a “eugenics mentality”. Clowes even went as far as to say that “the racism of eugenics and Planned Parenthood advocate Margaret Sanger is revealed in the assumptions found in Donohue and Levitt’s study,” according to LifeSiteNews.
 
“The unstated assertion behind all of this is that black people supposedly commit more crime than white people,” Clowes said. And given not only the rates at which a black woman is more likely to get an abortion than a white woman, but also the amount of times PP clinics emphasize going to minority neighborhoods and also target minority women, as well as the fact that Margaret Sanger considered black people to be “weeds”, you can logically observe that the study that makes the claim that abortion reduces crime rates are heavily rooted in racism.
 
The claim alone, considering the rates at which minorities will be more likely to get abortions, sounds rooted in racism. Another way to write that claim would be: “Abortion of minorities leads to reduced crime rates!” So while the economists don’t explicitly talk about minorities, the claims they make (which are wrong anyway) suggest that it’s good that minorities are having so many abortions because they create less criminals.
 
Now doesn’t that sound wrong to your ears? Well, it should, given just how incredibly wrong these two economists (and by extension, all who use their research) are when it comes to their positions. Abortion does not reduce crime. Neither do we see that actually happen in the U.S. nor do we see that happen outside the U.S. in countries like the U.K. and Russia, which actually show an increase in crime. But beyond that, it is racist to claim that abortion reduces crime because the vast majority of people who get abortions are minorities.
 
So the next time someone cites these economists and claims abortion reduces crime, remind them that minorities get abortions more often than white people, so that is the same thing as to say that minorities cause more crimes and aborting them reduces those crime rates. In other words, you can (rather credibly) call them racist and have some data to back up that claim that often gets thrown around so much.
 
Romans 16:18
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I have often times drawn comparisons between abortion and slavery, making different points about the similarities between the people who claim abortion is a “right”, similar to how old Southern Democrats claimed slavery was a “right”, and other similar points. But I am 23 years old and only became this nuanced with regards to the topic some years ago. But in Raleigh, North Carolina during a city council meeting, a 13-year-old girl made her case for making abortion illegal and comparing it to slavery (video below).
 
The girl began: “My name is Addison Woolsey. I strongly believe that abortion is murder. I also believe murder is wrong, so I’m here to ask you to make abortion illegal in Raleigh. Abortion should be illegal because it’s murder. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification and acting with intended malice. When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies they already have fingerprints, noses; they can recognize their mom’s voice. They can hiccup and their heart is beating… On ultrasounds the baby tries to run away from the disturbing instruments that try to kill the baby. The baby’s mouth opens wide in a scream when being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them and there is nothing they can do about it. There is no way around it. Abortion is murder.”
 
That in itself drew a few negative reactions from pro-abortion people in the crowd, which is to be expected. Even I was surprised at what the girl was saying.
 
Again, she is only 13 years old and is already so much wiser than probably 70% of the people in that room; certainly more-so than the pro-abortion crowd. She understands, at such an early age, just how horrific abortion is and fully understands that it’s nothing short of murder.
 
Do you want to know what I was mainly worried about when I was 13? Completing Grand Theft Auto IV. Finishing a video game was the most important thing for me at the time. I was aware that Obama was President, but I could not care less at the time. And while everyone was making a big fuss about him being the first black president, all I thought was “huh, cool, I guess. I mean, I don’t honestly care what his race is, but whatever,” and then went on with my day. Heck, even when I was 14, 15 and 16, I didn’t care all that much about politics (until around the 2012 election came around, at least).
 
My main priorities at the time were getting enough passing grades to graduate on time and getting a good kill/death ratio in the newest Call of Duty game. That’s it, and here we have a thirteen-year-old girl who is far more intelligent than I certainly was at the time and far more nuanced.
 
In any case, she continued: “There’s no way around it. Abortion is murder. So why is it if an infant is destroyed before birth there’s no problem but if killed after birth it’s considered a brutal murder? These babies aren’t ‘it’s’ or ‘fetuses’; they are human beings and they deserve to get the same human rights as any other person. As good ole’ Dr. Seuss said: ‘a person’s a person no matter how small.’”
 
She then also went on to quote scripture, specifically Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations.” And while obviously that verse was specific to Jeremiah, it does speak that God knows every single one of us before He formed us in our mothers’ womb. That part I liked a lot.
 
But later came the part that had the pro-abortion people shouting at her to stop talking and overall causing a ruckus:
 
“Abortion reminds me of slavery. Owners said that their slaves were their property and they could do whatever they wanted with them. Just how moms feel about their babies. My hope is that in a few years we’ll look back at abortion and think, ‘That was so cruel. I can’t believe we did that.’ Just how I look back at slavery. The question is, who will you be? The slave owner?... Rosa Parks? Or Abraham Lincoln? Who are you going to be? Make a choice. My choice is made. I’m here today standing up for what’s right. I’m here today speaking for those who can’t speak for themselves. Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child?”
 
Absolutely powerful stuff that hits the nail right on the head. Many of the same arguments pro-abortion people make are the same ones pro-slavery people made back in the day. “It’s my body, my choice” is awfully similar to “it’s my property to do with as I wish.” “They are not humans, they’re fetuses” is as ridiculous as “they are not humans, they are property”.
 
And if you really want to take it one step farther, it is equally as easy to draw comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust.
 
The slave owners at least had the decency to not try and kill what they considered their property. But pro-aborts, like the Nazis, aim to kill groups of people.
 
Let’s not forget Margaret Sanger herself acknowledged her desire to rid the world of what she considered “weeds” and “imbeciles”: the black race. But of course, black people aren’t the only ones Planned Parenthood targets, similar to how Jews weren’t the only targets of the Nazis.
 
Planned Parenthood also targets Hispanics such as myself. The Nazis also targeted those who were not of the Aryan race. And even those Hitler didn’t kill he still held disdain for. He thought of the Italians as lesser people to the Aryan race because they were a darker skin tone; more Mediterranean.
 
Planned Parenthood also targets people with disabilities like Down Syndrome, autism, etc. Guess who were some of the first targets of the Nazis? Lame people; people with disabilities who were deemed to be holding back the human race.
 
But whatever you wish to compare it to, abortion is as horrific and wrong as those two things were.
 
Addison then continued speaking, even talking over some of the protests: “Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child? Or are you going to protest even if it is going to cost you your life like Martin Luther King Jr.? Who are you going to be? If you think abortion should be illegal, would you please stand up? We need to change the law so that we can change the world. So let’s stand up and do it.”
 
An absolutely wonderful statement to make to her City Council. And again, she is just 13 years old. She must have pretty great and smart parents for her to not only be nuanced enough about abortion but to also be brave enough to go up to speak at a podium to the City Council, knowing full-well that there are others there who disagree and not knowing how they might react, but still speaking anyway.
 
One of the women in the pro-abortion side even started to yell at her after she finished about how she was being “inappropriate”. Odd that she finds that a thirteen-year-old comparing abortion to slavery is more “inappropriate” than the advocacy of infant slaughter.
 
If you go back to the beginning of her statement, she clearly remarked that babies in the womb have fingerprints, noses, heartbeats, can recognize their mom’s voice and can hiccup – many characteristics of something that is ALIVE. She also remarked that the babies FEEL BEING KILLED and have no alternatives; no voice; no personal choice to make. Their entire lives are being ended by a choice they did not make and could not make. They were being eliminated in the place where they ought to feel the safest and FEEL WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM AS THEY ARE MURDERED! They cry out in pain when they are being killed.
 
Comparing abortion to slavery is not inappropriate. ADVOCATING FOR THE SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN IS! And at the end of the day, that’s exactly what is being advocated here. It’s not women’s rights; no man or woman has the right to kill another person including their unborn child. It’s not women’s liberation; no one is free by being enslaved by sin. It’s not women’s healthcare; healthcare is about helping and saving people, not killing them. It’s about people’s supposed “right” to have all the sex they want without repercussions. It’s about people’s supposed “right” to eliminate any life that is deemed inconvenient to them. It’s about women’s supposed “right” to be used and abused by men all their lives.
 
Abortion is one of the most anti-woman things that one can advocate for. It’s one of the most anti-woman procedures one can do.
 
The fact this little girl understands so well precisely what abortion is and how horrible it is truly warms my heart. And like her, I also hope one day we will look back at abortion with the same lenses as we do slavery, recognizing how utterly inhumane those things were.
 
God bless her and her family.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

When it comes to the issue of morality, I will always reply with the ever-true statement that morality comes from God, as He was the one who created this planet and us, and thus decides what is considered morally righteous and morally bankrupt.
 
Of course, despite this, man is naturally evil. That is not to say we are horrible beings that always cause harm and do evil deeds no matter what, but we are totally depraved in as far as the original sin committed by Adam and Eve upon their disobedience to God lives within us all and we can only be forgiven by Jesus Christ. But of course, not everyone is forgiven by Him, so there are those who are often morally depraved but believe themselves to be morally in the right.
 
A recent Gallup poll shows this to some extent.
 
The poll covered a total of 21 topics relating to their moral acceptability; things like gambling, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
 
While the title focuses mostly on pre-marital sex and adultery, and while I will be covering those topics, I would like to explore as many of the 21 topics in the poll and talk in large about morality in general. I won’t get to every single one for the sake of time, just the ones that I believe I should talk about.
 
The topic that was viewed as most morally acceptable is birth control, with 92% of people saying they believe it is morally acceptable and only 6% saying it is morally wrong. Personally, I do not entirely disagree with this.
 
My biggest issue about birth control is that abortion is often considered to be a part of it. However, things like “the pill” or condoms I do not consider to be morally wrong, personally. That being said, of course, this issue is often at least somewhat tied to pre-marital sex, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (and we’ll get to that). However, I do not necessarily consider birth control options outside of abortion to be a bad thing. And as far as the Bible goes, well, you are not likely to find much about this at all. That is why I default to simply being against abortion under this circumstance because I know full-well that the Bible speaks often of the value of life and the love the Lord has for us on an individual basis.
 
Next came drinking alcohol, with 79% of people saying it is morally acceptable. This one I can bring the Bible to discuss. Obviously, getting drunk is a big no-no. Verses like Ephesians 5:18: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” and Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise,” are only some that speak against drunkenness. However, particularly with verses like Proverbs, there appears to be at least some moral acceptance of alcohol, provided it does not lead someone to get drunk and debauch and to overall sin against the Lord, being led astray by it. Similar to how it is okay to seek wealth, as long as it does not lead you from the path of the Lord, I think drinking alcohol is okay so long as you are not led astray by it and it causes you to debauch yourself and others. And let us not forget that Jesus turned water into wine, so it is not morally wrong to consume alcohol. Personally, though, I would not drink alcohol because of the long-term effects it can cause to the body and its risk for addiction.
 
Then comes the issue of divorce, with 77% of people believing it to be morally acceptable and 20% saying it’s unacceptable. I know depending on the denomination, different Christians will hold different views on it. Personally, I think divorce is okay under the following circumstances:
 
   1) The marriage is abusive to either partner. If someone is being verbally, mentally or physically abused, then divorce is okay especially because of the following point. 
 
  2) One or more of the partners is not a Christian. If someone is abusive of another person, the abuser is not really a Christian, even if they were to claim to be so. If the marriage is not a union under the Lord, it is not a true, Christian marriage. Receiving a marriage certificate may make you and your spouse legally married as far as the country’s laws go, but that does not necessarily mean you are married in God’s eyes. A marriage is a holy matrimony; a union not only between two people, but among two people and God, with God at the head of the marriage. 
 
So when it comes to divorce, I believe it is okay under certain conditions, but I believe it should be avoided by two Christians if the reasons for them desiring to divorce are petty and fixable. Just saying “I don’t love him/her like I used to” is not a good enough reason.
 
Next comes sex between an unmarried man and woman, with 71% saying it’s acceptable and 28% saying it’s not. No doubt, the Bible speaks against this. This constitutes adultery. Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is considered adultery, even if you do not have a spouse.
 
I am reminded of a twitter debate I have spoken of already around the time Alabama passed one of the most pro-life laws in the country, the topic of pre-marital sex came up (somewhat) and I was mocked for believing it to be good to not have sex until marriage and being darn proud of believing this. That only goes to show the kind of thinking the secular world has brought about.
 
Next comes gambling, with 68% saying it’s acceptable and 31% saying it’s not. Now, gambling is not explicitly covered in the Bible. It largely speaks about wealth and riches, with verses like Proverbs 13:11 saying: “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it,” and 1 Timothy 6:10 saying: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
Again, it’s the love of money, not necessarily the pursuit of it, that is sinful and evil. So I am not quite sure about this one. Personally, I don’t mind if people gamble, but wouldn’t do it myself because of the risk of addiction (and I consider it a massive waste of money anyway).
 
After this comes smoking marijuana, with 65% deeming it morally acceptable and 33% disagreeing. As with other things, drugs are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. However, one verse in particular ought to stand out: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
 
This verse speaks highly of our own bodies. But beyond that, it speaks largely to Christians. The part about being bought with a price does not apply to non-Christians – to those whom God has not elected to be saved. If anything, the verse speaks about Christians not doing anything to their own bodies, for it is God’s. So if God decries doing such things to our bodies, the conclusion one must reach is that any intake of things that mess with it in such a way is morally wrong (yes, I know alcohol could technically count here too, but it largely becomes a problem for your body when you have too much alcohol in your system and when you have been drinking alcohol for a long time, leading to your bodily systems and organs to decay as a result. Drugs have a more immediate negative effect on your body, particularly the brain, and it’s more severe).
 
Afterwards comes stem cell research, with 64% finding it acceptable and 31% disagreeing. Obviously, this one falls in a similar category as abortion does in general (speaking of which, it is at an interesting 42% finding it acceptable and 50% finding it unacceptable, mirroring a recent poll from Harvard/Harris). Stem cell research stems (pun intended) from fetal tissue – more specifically, from a dead fetus. More often than not, aborted fetuses are used for this type of research, so don’t be surprised if the Bible deems this to be immoral.
 
Next is having a baby outside of marriage, with 64% saying it is morally acceptable and 34% disagreeing. Similar to pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex, considering the act of having a baby results on having sex, this is also morally wrong. That’s not to deem the baby to be less than human – he or she is still loved by the Lord – but having a child outside of marriage is not morally right.

In Genesis 38, we learn of Judah and Tamar. Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law, though a widow. At one point, Tamar went to Timnah, where Judah was also going to shear his sheep. While she was wearing her widow’s garments at the time, she had taken them off because her groom-to-be, whom she was promised by Judah, Shelah, Judah’s other son, was grown up and she desired to be ready for him. However, in taking off those widows’ garments and putting on a veil, covering her face, she made herself look like a prostitute of the time. Judah saw her, thought she was a prostitute, and slept with her, even conceiving with her (like I’ve said multiple times, the Bible is filled with sinners). When it was found out she was pregnant, Genesis 38:24 says: “About three months later Judah was told, ‘Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.’ And Judah said, ‘Bring her out, and let her be burned.’”
 
Yes, Judah is a hypocrite here, something he himself acknowledges later in that chapter when they discover the baby is his and they don’t burn her, but we can see clearly that child-conception outside of marriage is deemed to be morally unacceptable. Judah is a sinner here, as is Tamar, who accepted to lay with her father-in-law, and their child-making (though I doubt they intended to do it) was marred in immorality and unrighteousness.
 
Next comes gay or lesbian relations, with 63% believing it is morally acceptable and 35% disagreeing. This is the easiest one to make a case against. Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
 
Suffice to say that same-sex relations are not morally acceptable by any means. Now, while I would not wish to put to death people who do this, I understand that what they do is, indeed, an abomination that would lead them to the ultimate death, the second death, should they not repent of their sins. As I’ve said time and time again, homosexuality is a sin. All sins lead to death if not repented for and forgiven by Christ.
 
Now, while there are other topics that I would like to cover more, like doctor-assisted suicide, suicide in general, sex between teenagers, etc., the last item I will talk about is extra-marital affairs, with only 9% believing it to be morally acceptable and 89% saying it is not morally acceptable.
 
This, as with pre-marital sex, is morally unacceptable according to God. But all things considered, I’m not really all that surprised to see that people think pre-marital sex is fine but extra-marital sex is not. Extra-marital sex is a betrayal from one of the partners. No one wants to be betrayed like this. It’s more of an emotional issue to most people than necessarily a moral one.
 
But then again, many of these answers can be answered in a similar, emotional manner. Those who say things like pre-marital sex and same-sex relationships are okay do so with emotions in mind, be it their own or someone else's. Sex feels good and people don’t like it when you point out that it’s wrong to do so outside of marriage.
 
But this is why morality has to have an absolute source. Morality cannot be dictated by society, else morality fails to be morality and becomes normality – what is considered normal. In this day and age, pre-marital sex is considered normal, but that doesn’t make it moral. 71% of people deeming pre-marital sex to be moral does not actually make it moral.
 
Often times, people deem moral what is immoral and immoral what is moral. I know perfectly well that Hitler viewed his actions to be perfectly moral and acceptable. To him, he was getting rid of people who were holding humanity back. The search for the ubermench was seen as perfectly moral. But what he did was entirely immoral. It’s not simply that people would agree today that that was immoral, but that speaking in absolute moral terms, according to God’s morality, what Hitler did was abhorrent.
 
So that is why morality cannot be determined by society. What is moral today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. But that’s not absolute morality. Morality, as I’ve repeated countless times, comes from God.
 
As the Ruler of the Universe, as King, God is the one who determines what is moral and immoral. Man has absolutely no right to determine morality given our original sin. We sinned against God. We are God’s creatures. Who are we to determine what is right and wrong when we are NATURALLY EVIL!?
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​

Often times when discussing abortion and Roe v. Wade in specific, people will point to polls that claim somewhere around 70% of people support Roe v. Wade and think it shouldn’t be even touched whatsoever by the Supreme Court. However, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shows us that that’s not even close to being true.
 
The Hill recently reported on the findings, though did what many MSM sources often do: lie about what is actually the case.
 
The Hill’s article was titled: “Nearly half of Americans say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade.”
 
Technically, that’s correct, but it attempts to mislead the audience by focusing on what is seemingly “good news” for pro-aborts.
 
“Forty-six percent of respondents said the high court should uphold the ruling in Roe if the issue comes before the justices, while 36 percent said the Supreme Court should modify the 46-year-old ruling. Eighteen percent wanted the ruling to be overturned altogether,” reported The Hill.
 
Yes, 46% of respondents in the poll said the Court should uphold Roe, but combining that 36% who said they should modify it and 18% saying they should overturn it garners 54% of the respondents supporting some sort of change.
 
Do you see the kind of mind games these people try to play? Again, technically, their headline is true, as 46% is nearly half of Americans, but it misses the larger point that a majority of Americans wish to see some sort of change to Roe be made, whether it is adjusting it in some sense (in what way, I don’t know) or outright getting rid of it.
 
So at the end of the day, the poll’s findings are not very good news for the pro-abortion crowd at all.
 
When it came to how restrictive abortion laws are, 37% said they are “too restrictive”, 34% said the existing laws are “just right” and 29% said they were “too liberal”. Again, putting things together, 63% of people don’t think abortion laws are too restrictive and don’t want there to be a change towards them being less restrictive. Either they think they are currently okay (I personally disagree, but that doesn’t matter much here) or they are too liberal and ought to be more restrictive.
 
What’s more, despite the fact that Democrat after Democrat is adopting extreme positions on abortion, like supporting late-term abortion or even up-to-birth abortion, the vast majority of people do not agree with them:
 
“A plurality – 41 percent – said the procedure should be allowed only in cases of rape or incest. Twenty-nine percent said it should be permitted up until the first trimester of pregnancy, while 17 percent said it should be allowed until the second trimester. Only 8 percent said abortions should be permitted up until the third trimester, and 6 percent said the procedure should be allowed ‘up until the birth of the child,’” according to The Hill.
 
The poll seemingly didn’t go into the percentage of people who think even in the cases of rape or incest abortion should not be allowed, but if it’s only 41% who say it should be allowed (still a rather sizeable percentage, but far from the majority), it stands to reason that a majority of people don’t think this way.
 
And the one thing I have come disagree with Trump on is this particular case of abortion. He thinks it is okay under these circumstances, but I heavily disagree. It’s not the child’s fault for being conceived.
 
Which reminds me of a tweet I had seen some time ago. Back when Alabama was in the process of signing one of, if not the most pro-life law in the country, I tweeted about it at pro-choice people, with someone particularly telling me that she would like for me to tell her 9-year-old children (she’s a school teacher) that I thought it was “okay for them to have a kid at that age” or something along those lines. Of course, I do not think that whatsoever, but that’s the sort of mindset these people have.
 
In any case, were I to actually get the chance to speak with them, I would say the following: “kids, would it be fair for your parents to punish you even though you did nothing wrong? Would you be okay with getting grounded, getting sent to your room, getting your toys/electronics taken away from you despite not being the one at fault for something bad happening to your parents? It certainly wouldn’t be fair, would it? And yet, there are people who think you should be punished with some of the worst punishment imaginable for things that are well outside of your abilities to control. Those people are mean, aren’t they?”
 
Would I be wrong in saying that to children? Would that be factually wrong? Some people think it’s okay to abort a child if it was conceived from rape or incest. I can definitely sympathize with children who are the victims of rape and conceive as a result. It’s absolutely heart-breaking, but the punishment should not come to the child in the womb, but to the soulless bastard who defiled and took away a child’s innocence. The young mother ought to be well taken care of and heavily supported in whatever way possible, but the child inside the womb should not be thrown away because he or she is such an inconvenience.
 
I can understand why people think abortion ought to be allowed in this circumstance, but that still doesn’t make it right or okay. Regardless, as far as I can see, most people, or at least a good number of people, will likely agree with me on this. And even those who are fairly pro-choice, as we see in this poll, are only pro-choice up until a certain point.
 
Only 29% of people said it should be allowed until the first trimester of pregnancy (I imagine they mean up until near the end of it, as the moment a woman conceives is the moment she becomes pregnant and the moment the first trimester begins). Only 17% said they support it until the second trimester, only 8% until the third and only 6% support it up to the moment of birth.
 
Even combining the last two numbers, you only get around 14% of people who support such extreme abortion positions. Not a good thing for Democrats seeking the highest office in the land.
 
Not that it will matter at all to them. The Democrats only care about appearing to be the most “progressive” candidate running and will out-pander each other to get there. Despite how most people feel about abortion, they will insist on supporting it until the moment of the child’s birth; an utterly barbaric belief. All this in an effort to be as unlike Trump as humanly possible, despite the fact he is enjoying some of the best numbers of his presidency, despite the fact he is doing just about everything right for the country, they have it engrained in their minds that he is the worst president in American history and ought to be swiftly beaten come 2020.
 
Why else do you think so many Democrats are jumping onto the race? They all believe they can beat Donald Trump, when it’s unlikely even Joe Biden, the current Democrat frontrunner, has any chance of doing so.
 
Considering the type of news the MSM spreads, including this article from The Hill, which is meant to mislead people, I don’t exactly blame them for being so out of touch with reality. They’d rather be told convenient lies than uncomfortable truths.
 
When they are told socialism has historically failed time after time, they go to someone who will try and point to Canada or some other socialist country that isn’t doing too bad (as though socialism is something that destroys a country immediately. Venezuela took over a decade to get to this point and the Soviet Union was around since after World War I until the early 1990s). Despite the fact that socialism is all about taking other people’s money, not creating it, they believe it works because it’s “woke” or the SJW thing to believe in.
 
When they are told that a child inside the womb is, indeed, a baby and a child, and that even the word “fetus”, which is what the Left often will use to replace the word “baby” still means “offspring”, they believe that the baby is not actually a baby until it is. I know, a ridiculous logical fallacy, but they run with it anyway.
 
So when they are told that most people don’t agree on third-trimester abortions, they will think it’s fake news and dismiss it. Which is fine with me, as that is likely to ruin them come election time (along other things they completely dismiss), but I just wonder how long they will live in their own bubble until that bubble gets popped.
 
The problem with trying to shape reality is that reality always wins in the end.
 
Psalm 139:13
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In recent time, the Supreme Court ruled (7-2, which was surprising), that Indiana had the right to require “medical facilities” like Planned Parenthood to provide dignified burials or cremation for aborted children. And while that is a nice little win for pro-lifers, the Court decided against ruling on a supposedly controversial part of the law that prohibited abortions on the basis of race, gender or disabilities.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas, after the ruling, said in a statement that while “further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression,” and that the Court was smart to not rule on this part of the Indiana law, the Court cannot avoid this issue forever.
 
“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool for eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.”
 
He added: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”
 
The Indiana law in question largely focuses on the disabilities aspect, targeting abortions performed for the reasons of a baby having Down syndrome.
 
The law reads: “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’ race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
 
According to The Daily Wire, “Thomas referenced genetic screening in his concurrence, noting that a baby’s gender can be determined by an elective blood test given between 7 and 10 weeks, and that disabilities like Down syndrome can be detected before the end of the first trimester.” Thomas said that pairing these screenings with largely unrestricted abortion access leads us to “modern-day eugenics.”
 
Thomas ended by writing: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
 
All-in-all, I largely agree with what Justice Clarence Thomas is saying here except for two points. One, I do not think it was smart of the Court to pass up on not ruling on this part of the Indiana law. More time given to look things over when they ought to be clear as day allows for other states that do not have a similar law to perform the sort of ethnic cleansing Margaret Sanger often dreamed of.
 
If one discriminates against someone based on any of these factors at any level, whether that be in business, in school, in sports, or in any other area, that person is punished to some capacity. Not allowing a black person to eat at your restaurant for the reason of his or her race is not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
Nowhere can someone openly discriminate against someone for the reason of race, sex, etc. except in the womb. Let us not ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood disproportionally targets black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with almost 80% of their facilities located within walking distance of minorities. Let’s not ignore the fact that 52% of African American pregnancies end in abortion or that roughly 1,800 black babies are aborted every day.
 
Let’s not ignore the fact that babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are 60 to 80% likely to be aborted, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And that’s just in the U.S. In Europe, Down syndrome is basically non-existent, not because they found a cure, but because they systematically abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.
 
And in places like China and India, unborn girls face a high probability of being aborted. The UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund. Yes, the letters don’t match, but that’s because they used to be called the United Nations Fund for Population Activities) says that “126 million women and girls were missing in 2010 due to gender-biased sex selection, which can include, for example, excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection.”
 
That last reason they give, “prenatal sex selection” is simply their Leftist way of acknowledging abortion is the cause without actually blaming abortion. But you can plainly see that abortion is at least partly responsible for over 100 million women and girls “missing” (not sure what exactly that is supposed to mean here, but I may have a few ideas).
 
Countries like India show quite an imbalance in sex ratios, where there are 110 boys born for every 100 girls from 2011-2013. But that is nothing compared to China, which had 115.9 boys for every 100 girls born in 2014.
 
So throughout the world, abortion is already very much a tool of eugenics. Matter of fact, it always has been! And that’s the second point that I don’t entirely agree with Thomas. Abortion does not lead to eugenics. Abortion is already a tool of eugenics and always has been.
 
Let’s not forget that Margaret Sanger saw black people as a “weed” to be uprooted and frequently employed Nazi sympathizers like Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard. And let’s not forget that there have been a plethora of eugenics-based organizations, such as the Eugenics Record Office, the National Conference on Race Betterment, and the American Breeders Association.
 
These racist organizations were so vile that one particular man remarked: “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” And that “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason. If systematically executed, it represents the most humane act of mankind.”
 
And just who was this man who viewed American eugenics and abortion as “the most humane act of mankind”?
 
None other than the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. Yes, he absolutely adored American eugenics programs and sought to adopt them into his own German empire.
 
Margaret Sanger sought to utilize abortion as a eugenics tool long before there was even a Planned Parenthood. She sought to keep minorities, whom she considered “weeds” and “imbecilic” and overall “defective”, from reproducing as much as possible.
 
And given the statistics we see today, that sort of racial discrimination is not only alive and well, but outright THRIVING. We easily see the dreams of Margaret Sanger, Clarence Gamble, Lothrop Stoddard, and Adolf Hitler being carried out by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists throughout the world.
 
Already, 61 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973 and 1.5 billion in the world since 1980. Almost 20 million in the U.S. were black.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly right in drawing the links between abortion and eugenics, particularly in race-based, sex-based, etc. abortions. The problem is that abortion doesn’t lead to eugenics. Abortion IS eugenics. Now, not all eugenics are abortions, but all abortions are eugenics. The reasoning behind the abortions may not sound like eugenics, but at the end of the day, they are.
 
It’s not “women’s healthcare” or “liberation” for a black woman to kill off her own offspring (the literal definition of a fetus). It’s eugenics, through and through.
 
And Thomas is certainly right in saying that the Supreme Court can’t keep kicking this particular can down the road. Eventually, it will have to face the reality that this kind of abortion is outright discrimination and should be treated like any other kind of discrimination is today.
 
1 Samuel 16:7
“But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.