I generally shy away from posting YouTube videos on my blog because one click of the video moves you to the YouTube site where the comments are often not appropriate reading.
However, this speech by this young lady on the topic of abortion is so well done, I thought I would try to "embed" a YouTube video here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts for the first time. Hopefully this will work.
It is my understanding that this young lady won first place for this speech - after a judge quit in protest.
I do not know anything about this young lady, but her message is very good. May God use it in the ears of the many who need to hear.
Some related posts on this topic:
A National Scandal
Consider This
Change I Wish We Didn't Need to Believe In
There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey (Part 2)
Just my thoughts,
Frank
My Blog List
-
Comparing the Scandinavian Countries6 years ago
-
Some Friday FWIW11 years ago
-
My Cents Are Spent. Almost.13 years ago
-
The Scriptures — Inspired or Expired?14 years ago
Sansone's Gifts for Families
Visit Sansone's Gifts for Families
An Awesome Speech by a Little Girl
Wednesday, February 18, 2009Posted by Frank Sansone at 12:04 PM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, America, Culture War, Links, Resources
A National Scandal
Thursday, January 22, 2009(I recognize that this post is extremely long. The topic of the post, however, is very important.)
Almost two thousand years ago, a scandal spread across the country of Israel. It was a scandal that was large in its scope as everyone knew about what was going on, yet no one was doing anything about the scandal. Finally, one man stood up against the scandal. One man understood the need to speak the truth in an age when the truth was unpopular and standing for the truth could cost you a lot. In this man's case, it cost him his life.
The scandal of which I am referring to is referred to in Mark 6:14-29. In this passage, we read the story of the encounter of John the Baptist with Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas was one of the sons of Herod the Great and had a half-brother named Philip. As Herod visited his half-brother Philip, he lusted after Philip's wife, Herodias, and took her for his wife (ditching his own wife in the process). To make bad matters even worse, Herodias was also Herod's niece!
John the Baptist stood up against this scandal of his day and it ended up costing him his life.
Today, we live in the midst of another great scandal. This scandal is not one done by one man or one family, but a scandal that is done on a national level and is a scandal that is on a great scale. It is a scandal that we mark today, January 22.
As many of you are probably aware, on January 22, 1973, a court ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade. While much has been said and written about this case, the result of this case is that it opened the door for abortion on demand to become the law of the land - and the practice of abortion has skyrocketed since then. It is estimated that there have been approximately 50 million abortions in the 35 years since this decision was handed down by the courts.
When we consider the statistics regarding abortion, the totals really are staggering.
In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been about 50 million abortions. Think of that a minute and let it sink in. FIFTY MILLION. We often hear big numbers today and kind of just skip over them. What does this 50 million mean? As I mentioned in a post on this topic two years ago, this 50 million represents more than the population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington, D.C. - COMBINED! (This 50 million also represents over 10 million more lives than our largest state, California.)
The Abort 73 Web-site does a great job of listing some stats regarding abortion. Some of these follow:
Looking at some other numbers regarding abortion, we find that in 2000, there were 3,600 abortions per day, 149 per hour, 1 every 24 seconds. As of 2001, there were 246 abortions for every 1,000 live births. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
While those who support abortion often speak about the "hard cases" - rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or mother - only 7% of all abortion cases fit into any of these categories - the other 93% ARE ELECTIVE.
The scandal of abortion is a blight upon our nation. And, as Christians, we ought to speak up against this scandal - even as John the Baptist spoke up against the scandal of his day and exposed the sin.
A couple of thoughts come to mind regarding our need to expose this sin.
1. If we are going to expose sin, we should understand our responsibility to expose sin.
The Bible tells us that we are to reprove - admonish, rebuke - the works of darkness:
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Christ also told us that we are to be salt and light - to be different and to make a difference.
Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
As Christians we have a responsibility to expose sin. We have a responsibility to explain to others what God has revealed regarding a particular matter. As we expose the sin, we need to do so with a heart of love for the sinner and a heart of obedience to Christ. We also need to be careful that we do not just give half of the story. We need to not only reprove the sin, we need to do so in such a way that we point people to the answer to the sin - forgiveness in Christ.
2. If we are going to expose sin, we should do so with the right character.
If we are to expose the sin and scandal of abortion, we should do so with a basis of right character. Herod understood that even though the message of John the Baptist about his sin was a message that he did not want to hear, the character of John was so evident that Herod actually kept him alive despite the desires of Herodias.
Mark 6:19-20 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: 20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
When we take on the awesome task of exposing sin, we need to do so with the right character. We read that John the Baptist was just and holy. We also find out that he was bold (Luke 3:7-9) and humble (John 1:27 and John 3:30). We can have this delicate combination of boldness and humility when we understand that without Christ we can do nothing, but we can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth us.
3. If we are going to expose sin, we should have clarity in our message.
When John the Baptist confronted Herod, he clearly laid out the nature of Herod's sin. In regards to abortion, we need to present clearly two important truths. The first truth is the fact that murder violates God's law. For most people, this is obvious. The second truth is establishing the fact that a child in the womb is a person - and thus murdering that child in the womb is a violation of God's command not to murder.
Some of the facts that point out the truth that a child in the womb is a person includes the following Biblical evidences.
1. Children in the womb are described with the same terminology as children outside the womb.
Ge 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
The word children used here is the normal word for child or son, even though the children are still in womb. It is not a word that refers to a fetus or even an "unborn child."
Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
The word translated babe in Luke 1:41 is the same word used in the next chapter when we read that Mary laid the "babe" in the manger.
2. Children in the womb are shown as active and alive.
For instance, in Luke 1 - John the Baptist recognized that the other baby was Christ. This baby (in the womb) was active.
By the way, we see this when we consider children in the womb today. Many of us have seen the photograph where a baby being operated on grabbed the finger of the surgeon.
3. Children in the womb are described as persons.
In Psalm 51:5, the Psalmist writes: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Note that it is "I" that was shapen - not some "pre- I"
In Isaiah 49:1, the prophet declares: "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." Again, it was "me" that was called, not some "pre-me." (Similar examples can be found in Psalm 139:13, Job 31:13-15, etc.)
The reality is that the world inherently KNOWS that the unborn baby is a life. Some may have been able to plead ignorance in 1973, but with the advances in technology (including the awesome 3-D sonograms), it is beyond reaonableness to claim that this child is not a life. That is why most states have laws that if you kill the child that the mother is carrying, you can get arrested. (Remember Scott Peterson a few years ago - he was convicted of two counts of murder, Laci and the Baby.) The only time when killing a child in the womb is considered acceptable is when the killing is done by a doctor in the name of "choice."
The reality is abortion is taking an innocent life and the image of God is being destroyed by this act. (See Job 1:21 and Genesis 9:6)
4. If we are going to expose sin, we should do so recognize that exposing sin is compassionate.
It is compassionate because exposing sin helps people to recognize their need of forgiveness. Galatians 3:24 reminds us that the law is a "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
In our society today, we are often afraid to directly confront sin and to tell someone that their actions are a sin against a holy God. In not directly confronting sin, people think they are being compassionate and kind. In reality, this is not compassionate. Allowing those involved in sin (in whatever form the sin might be) to think that they are okay and just making a "choice" can lead them into a complacence of not recognizing their need of forgiveness.
Instead, as we point out the sin of abortion, we should do so while sharing with them the compassionate truth that there is forgiveness for sin - even for the sin of abortion. That forgiveness is only found in the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses us from all sin.
So, as we mark with sadness this important anniversary, may we step forth boldly and stand against this scandal in our nation. And doing so, may we compassionately point people to the One who can forgive even this sin - Jesus Christ.
Just my thoughts,
Frank
(Some of the these thoughts are adapted from the Abort73 web-site.)
Posted by Frank Sansone at 11:58 PM 4 comments
Labels: Abortion, Christianity, Culture War
Change I Wish We Didn't Need to Believe In
Tuesday, January 20, 2009In less than five minutes today, the message of the White House (through its official website - www.whitehouse.gove) changed from a message that celebrated life and family to a message that supports a radical view of abortion and a radical twisting of the family.
It is amazing how quickly the desire was to get rid of words like these:
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.
In about five minutes, the White House website went from defending innocent life to touting President Obama "a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration [sic]."
Not only is the hopeful message that celebrates a "culture of life" gone from the official White House website, the hopeful message regading the importance of marriage between one man and one woman is gone as well, replaced instead with one that supports the repeal of the Defesnse of Marriage Act (which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and one that opposes the federal marriage ammendment.
If you go to the White House website to look for the page that contained the words that proclaimed January 18, 2009 as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day", you will not find the page. Instead, you get a 404 message which tells you -"The page you requested wasn't found at this location. The Obama Administration has created a brand new White House website, and it's possible that the page you were looking for has been moved. Please take a moment to explore our new site, learn more about President Obama and his team, and read about their plan to bring about the change America needs."
Unfortunately, it seems that very few (if any) on the Obama team (or perhaps in Washington altogether) even have a clue about what constitutes "the change America needs." The change America needs is to recognize our sinfulness before God, to repent and to turn to Him. Certainly it is not a change that hearkens back to the days of the Ammonites who sacrificed their children to the false god of Molech.
In regards to praying for the President, while I don't agree with Dr. Al Mohler on everything, I appreciate the following words from his post on "A Prayer for President Obama."
Father, may this new president see that human dignity is undermined when human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical progress, and may he see marriage as an institution that is vital to the very survival of civilization. May he protect all that is right and good. Father, change his heart where it must be changed, and give him resolve where his heart is right before you.
Father, when we face hard days ahead -- when we find ourselves required by conscience to oppose this president within the bounds of our roles as citizens -- may we be granted your guidance to do so with a proper spirit, with a proper demeanor, and with persuasive arguments. May we learn anew how to confront without demonizing, and to oppose without abandoning hope.
Father, we are aware that our future is in your hands, and we are fully aware that you and you alone will judge the nations. Much responsibility is now invested in President Barack Obama, and much will be required. May we, as Christian citizens, also fulfill what you would require of us. Even as we pray for you to protect this president and change his heart, we also pray that your church will be protected and that you will conform our hearts to your perfect will.
Father, we pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, the ever-reigning once and future King, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He and he alone can save, and his kingdom is forever. Above all, may your great name be praised. Amen.
Here is an article at Baptist Press that gives some additional details about the change in the White House website: With Obama in power, Whitehouse.gov now backs abortion rights, 'gay rights'
Posted by Frank Sansone at 5:22 PM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, Culture War, Obama, Politics, Prayer
Some Blogging Quick Hits
Thursday, January 24, 2008Today I think I am ready to start back into blogging. This last month has been kind of awkward for me. Things have been pretty busy around here and blogging has had to take a significant back seat. In the middle of that, I had some computer issues and was not able to be online for an extended period of time. After fixing that problem, I have only stepped back in to the online world for occassional comments in a few places.
I have still read some blogs (mostly via Bloglines) and have even commented on a couple of posts in other locations, but I have been looking at the questions from Don and thinking that I should wait until I have sat down to answer them all before I start blogging again and, since I have not been able to sit down and think through them as much as I would like, I have not posted anything.
I have decided, however, that I am going to go ahead and post some things anyway and get to Don's questions as I have time and inclination, rather than holding up all posting until I am prepared to answer them all. (BTW, the wife of a former voice teacher of mine who has left Fundamentalism took a shot at the questions the other day and attempted to answer them regarding Fundamentalism and her answers reveal her own lack of understanding of Fundamentalim in the first place - a fact that may have contributed to their leaving Fundamentalism.)
Anyway, a couple of quick hits will have to suffice for Today's Post.
1. Dr. Kevin Bauder has recently begun a series of articles on Fundamentalism and scholarship in Central Baptist Theological Seminary's little newsletter, In the Nick of Time. SI has also posted these articles. I will probably wait until the series is complete before commenting much, but since we had a pretty good discussion regarding Fundamentalism and Scholarship here at A Thinking Man's Thoughts not too long ago, I thought I would mention it. I will say that I most likely will disagree with Dr. Bauder on this topic - since I significantly disagree with his definition of "scholar".
2. Yesterday (January 22) marked the 35th anniversary of a travesty in American jurisprudence - the infamous Roe v. Wade decision from the ????-led U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 50 million dead babies later and America still allows this murderous blight of abortion to be practiced and championed. May God have mercy on our nation! (I have previously posted on this topic - here.)
3. The political scene is getting interesting. If Guiliani can win Florida (with 57 delegates in a winner-take-all format), his strategy may prove to be viewed as brilliant, since California (173 delegates) and New York (110 winner-take-all delegates) will likely go his way if he shows he can win in Florida (I know that polls show McCain currently in the lead in California, but I predict a Guiliani win in Florida would also result in a California win for Guiliani). I am not looking forward to this as the outcome, but it could be interesting to watch. Thompson's hit upon Mike Huckabee in the SC debate may have been a fatal blow. It likely cost Huckabee a SC win (and Huckabee was within three points of McCain), which would have been huge for Huckabee as it would have shown that he could continue to compete and he would have likely drawn more of the social conservatives over to his side (including a number of social conservative who have been left without a candidate now that Thompson is withrawing). Instead, Thomspson's slam on Huckabee will almost guarantee that very few of his former supporters go Huckabee's direction and his second place finish in SC (instead of a win) will likely keep a number of the "I like Mike, but don't think he can win" voters from voting for him - and thus, turn them into self-fulfilling prophets.
Just my quick thoughts,
Frank
Posted by Frank Sansone at 12:40 AM 4 comments
Labels: Abortion, Blogging, Culture War, Fundamentalism, Politics
Thinking about elections
Tuesday, October 16, 2007As the presidential primaries rapidly approach, the discussion regarding the candidates for President of the United States is starting to really take off.
Just today, the Greenville News is reporting that Dr. Bob Jones, III has endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina (story here). Earlier this week, Hugh Hewitt psted a memo from Mark DeMoss who made also tried to make the case for Romney (story here).
I know that I am a nobody, but I wonder if we are jumping the gun and I also wander if we are backing the wrong guy.
The comment from Dr. Bob that was immediately under the headline in The Greenville News was "This is all about beating Hillary." Mark DeMoss's post indicates that one of his three requirements was that the person must be "someone who can actually win the nomination."
Here is where I think we are coming close to making the same mistake the Democrats made in 2004. If you step into your time machine a minute, you will recall that up until Iowa, Governor Dean was the one with all of the excitement and momentum among the radical leftist base. However, the establishment Dems feared that Dean would be unelectable to the majority of Americans and were pushing for John Kerry instead. The argument was essentially - "This is all about beating George Bush" and the thought was that the base was so infumed in their hatred for Bush that the base was covered so they needed to find someone who could appeal to the uncommitted without bringing too much offense. John Kerry got pushed because he was viewed as the "safe condidate" and those pushing Kerry won the day with their argument.
Unfortunately for the Dems (but fortunately for thinking Americans), this stategy failed. I think that part of the reason this strategy failed was that a winning candidate needs to be someone that the people feel that they can support - and that they are willing to work for and to tell their friends about, etc. I actually think that Dean may have been able to do a better job against Bush because he was clear on his opposition to the War, he was clear on the other issues. Bush's team managed to successfully go after the fact that Kerry was just playing politics with so many issues and "flip flopping."
It looks to me that this same type of thing is what is happening at this time in the Republican primaries. The social conservatives are trying to find a way to beat Guiliani, who has staked out some pretty liberal social views on abortion, gay marriate, etc. In order to do so, the thinking seems to be that they need to all become unified around one of the socially conservative candidates so that this turns into a two man race - Guiliani vs. Romney -with the idea that if all the social conservatives eggs are in one basket, the basket will be heavy enough to tip the scale.
The problem with this is that I do not believe that Romney has the ability to rally the rank and file social conservatives - especially the socially conservative evangelical voters - to his side.
Here are some reasons why I question the ability of Mitt Romney to excite the socially conservative rank and file are as follows.
1. His record and rhetoric as a social conservative is wishy-washy at best. If you take the time to watch the videos at YouTube of Romney's debates in Massachusetts, you will find that repeatedly he trumpets his views as pro-choice. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." (Here is one of many videos that the left will use against him on this - and that causes the little guys like me to wonder where the guy really stands on this issue). I recognize that he is claiming to be pro-life now, but this debate was in 2002 - we are not talking that long ago and the switch in positions at this venture (especially when he talks in other debates about how long his family has stood on this issue - since his mother ran for Senate) will seem too convenient and politically motivated for the average Joe.
2. He has not galvinized the base already with all the money he has on his side. Romney has spent a whole lot more money than Brownback, Huckabee, etc., but he still has not managed to stir up the excitement. The pundits out there keep talking about how great it is that he has raised a lot of money (although a lot of it seems to be money he has loaned to himself). That is true, but what kind of return is he getting for that money? In the August Iowa straw poll, Huckabee came in second with 18.1% and Brownback came in third with 15.3%.
3. Like it or not, the reality is that the Mormonism of Romney will cause many to be cautious about voting for him. Not just among conservative evangelical voters, but in the general election as well. I understand that "we are voting for a President, not a Pastor" has a nice ring to it, but that line did not work when people wanted to dismiss the character issue in regards to Clinton. The reality is that many Americans vote on how they percieve a guy as much as they do on the person's policies. This is especially true of the folks in the "undecided land" who wait until the last month to make their decisions. For many of these people, the election all comes down to their impression of a person - and for many, that impression of Romney as the great Mormon leader will be the one that holds them back.
Imagine if the guys who seem to be trying to get the bandwagon going for Romney would put their efforts behind someone who evangelical Christians could support, rather than a man whose pro-life creditials are shaky at best?
Just my thoughts,
Frank
Posted by Frank Sansone at 7:53 PM 6 comments
There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey - Part 2
Friday, October 05, 2007As I mentioned in my last post, there were two recent situations in New Jersey that could have national implications and ought to be of concern to believers.
The last one - which dealt with the attempt to coerce a Methodist Camp Association to allow homosexual civil unions in their chapel/pavillion - I entitled, "There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey, part 1".
This article is the "Part 2" to the first article and relates to a different moral issue.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that doctors "have no duty to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being." (NJ.Com article is located : here)
The New Jersey Supreme Court is not famous for reasoned and rational decisions and leans heavily Democrat. (Although they have a mostly new set of justices now, they still are 5-2 appointed by Democrats and the 2 appointed by Republicans were appointed by liberal Republican Christine Whitman.)
Notice the following quote:
Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."
The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."
If this was the early 1970s, I could understand a doctor not being sure that a seven-week pregnancy is a living human being. But with the advances in technology that allow us to look into the womb and all the things we now know about the process of pregnancy and the development of children in the womb, to make such a claim should cause this guy to lose his license.
If he wanted to make the case that this life was not worth saving or something along those lines, I would still disagree, but at least he could still claim some intellectual honesty. Instead, he is hiding his head in the sand to support the prevailing liberal agenda of the day.
Ridiculous.
One day, I hope that we will look back at the genocide of the pro-abortion agenda the way that many of us view the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution - how could such otherwise wise men have been so stupid?
Just my thoughts,
Frank
(For a related article on this subject from my archives, see this post.)
Posted by Frank Sansone at 2:29 PM 2 comments
Labels: Abortion, Christianity, Culture War, Politics
Consider this
Friday, January 27, 2006What is greater in number than the population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington, D.C. - COMBINED?
I am sure there are a number of things that could answer that question, but the answer I am looking reveals a scandal that has infested our nation for the last 33 years. The answer I am looking for is, of course, the number of abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, 33 years ago on January 22, 1973. That number is 46 million (that is also 10 million more than the population of California, as well.)
Last Sunday, I preached on the need to expose sin and used abortion as an illustration. I was trying to edit the sermon for turning it into a post, but after trying to edit a couple of times, I still end up with seven pages and that is just too big to post.
So, having said that, I would encourage you to take a look at Abort73.com. It is the best site on abortion that I have ever seen.
Just my thoughts,
Frank
Posted by Frank Sansone at 12:18 AM 1 comments
Labels: Abortion, Christianity, Politics, Popular Posts
