You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Abortion’ tag.

There is a lot of discussion at the state and the national level regarding thought hate crimes. According to the Federal Government for purposes of statistical tracking, a thought hate crime is defined as:

crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.

For purposes of sentencing guidelines, a thought hate crime is defined as:

a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

There is a bill currently up for consideration to further enhance efforts to punish thought hate crimes. Under the old sentencing guidelines, it was a sentencing increase enhancement where the “offense level” is increased by three and increasing the jail time involved. The 2006 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual is here. The new bill would instead change the sentencing guidelines and send money to states, local governments, and Indian Tribes for the purposes of enforcing thought hate crimes legislation. While providing funding for these prosecutions, it would also encourage some governments to add thought hate crimes statutes to the books to qualify for federal grants.

Legislation like this is trying to turn the tide of Darwinism from the havoc it causes in society. When the country was founded, it was a Christian nation that believed in the Creation, that we are all God’s children, and that we should be proper stewards over the earth and the animals thereon. This was an agrarian mind set where you should make the land fruitful and care for your animals.

Their ideas were wrong where skin color was concerned and there was a belief that this stewardship over animals extended to caring for the Negroes brought over in the slave trade. Believe it or not, Colonial America was incredibly racist and for a time thought that slavery was in a some sense humane because it was a way of caring for and feeding the Negroes who were considered coarse, less than fully human, unable to care for themselves in civilized society, and a corrupting influence. Many abolitionists wanted slavery to be ended because it was evil, not for any love of the Negroes. A common plan was to send the freed slaves back to Africa, to Liberia. When states began to vote to be free or slave states it was at least based in part on economics and prejudice. If your state’s economy was not heavily based on agricultural production, you became a free state which functionally excluded Negroes. While they may have had their “freedom” it was mostly the freedom to starve. Negroes were discriminated against, not allowed to own land and not allowed to reside in some cities. It was a very tough time.

There has been prejudice against the Jews, the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese (concentration internment camps), homosexuals, protestants, Catholics, and a genocidal war against American Indians after the Civil War. Prejudice is in our history. It comes with freedom to think whatever you want to think. It has never been illegal before the last ten years. It was always illegal to rob, murder, rape, burglarize, or kidnap, along with other crimes, except for times of war and then all bets were off.

How Darwinism is the Father of the Push for Hate Crimes Legislation.

In 1859 Satan was given a wonderful tool to promote atheism or any other belief that would lead people away from God when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. Satan jives with anything that causes death, misery, and destroys Faith in God.

Darwin came up with a theory that allowed people under the guise of science to claim that the Bible is wrong. Interestingly, macro-evolution where a species actually becomes a different species has never been tested and proven. Every single bit of the evidence to show evolution as Darwin envisioned it is wrong. People make impressive diagrams, paintings, falsify pictures, suppress archaeological evidence, and have even tried to put Creationism on trial to prove it right, but no real science has appeared to support evolution. People believed it anyway because it fit their goals for a secular and godless society. Once God is out of the mental equation, there is nothing special about anyone really. Society is suddenly composed of evolved apes that learned to use tools. So, if evolution is real, why not help it along?

That is exactly what happened with the belief in eugenics. Nazis believed that there is a master Aryan race which should rule over all others. Nazis used the camps as a method of “racial hygiene” to get rid of undesirables, including Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Gay Men, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people with mental and physical disabilities. Nazis also “euthanized” other “undesirables” or sometimes allowed for compulsory sterilization of those considered a burden or not racially pure enough. Eugenics is also the modern precursor of abortion politics.

Nazi Eugenics policies were based on Darwinian Science and evolution. American bleeding heart secularists who can’t let us get back to teaching religious principles in school therefore have decided to criminalize prejudice. If you are sent to jail for 1 year for aggravated assault, you have been punished for your bad act. If you are sent to jail for five years because you committed the aggravated assault a person because you hate them in a prejudicial fashion, you have been punished for your bad thought.

There is a concept called mens rea in criminal law. You must have also had some intention of committing a crime to be guilty of a crime. That is the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and other forms of crimes. It insures that people who may have killed someone purely by accident do not go to jail, it is the mental description of the intent of the actor, not to be confused with thought hate crimes.

Because Darwinism, atheism, secular humanism, and other purely rational thought logically leads to prejudice, the bleeding hearts among us have successfully implemented a plan to criminalize prejudice if you ever act out on them in a way deemed to be criminal. A+ for the idea of helping to improve society, D- for implementation.

Comments Welcome


This is a topic that is often very controversial, emotional, and difficult to discuss. This posting is an attempt to speak the truth about abortion without apologizing.

LDS Doctrine is clear on this point:

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption”).

—See True to the Faith (2004), 4–5

It is tempting as a Latter Day Saint to say that I will not have an abortion, but I cannot support banning them because of the sanctity of our agency. This is wrongheaded and addressed by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in this article, here is a part:

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

Here is an Ensign article containing 15 separate arguments to support NOT easing up on abortion restrictions.

The LDS Church is firmly against abortion except in the most extreme circumstances and even then, only after sincere prayer and counseling with your bishop. As a people we are encouraged to be “pro-life”.

What is the Cost of a Society That Allows Abortion?

Ask Geraldo Flores. In Texas, it is a Felony punishable by a full life term to purposely cause a miscarriage if you are not a doctor. His girlfriend was pregnant and began to show, then decided she would have an abortion. The doctor told her she was too far along, past 23 weeks. She was also carrying twins. She tried punching her own stomach and running long distances and when that did not work, she begged her boyfriend to help her do it and he stomped on her stomach, causing her to miscarry the two babies. Geraldo Flores has been sentenced to life in prison. His girlfriend remains free to go on with her life. It is, after all a woman’s right to choose.

But, Planned Parenthood was started with only the best of intentions, right? Wrong.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger. She was lauded as one of the “Top 100” most important people of the 20th Century in Time Magazine and as one of the pioneers of the feminist movement. It turns out that she was mostly in favor of only aborting the right kind of people, or what is known as eugenics. Her bigotry was not merely racial. She was in favor of sterilization of people with mental handicaps, people who are too religious, poor, immigrants, or anyone else considered “unfit”. From

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spoke of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

Margaret Sanger is quoted extensively by Diane S. Dew and has Ms. Sanger’s opinions on all sorts of topics and quotes official statements from Planned Parenthood. They are in favor of any kind of consensual sex, and against marriage in general. They are in favor of the sterilization of everyone: “[Planned Parenthood] has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970)”

Are you convinced you should sup
port anti-abortion efforts yet? No?

How about 50,000,000 abortions in the United States since 1973. The article was published in 2004, and with the rate of abortions, we are now over 50,000,000 aborted pregnancies. On a positive note, there has been a small reduction in the amount of abortions in the United States. In the United States alone. 1973 was significant because Roe v. Wade was decided and as voters we no longer have the ability to enforce any kind of meaningful regulation on abortion. Subsequent court decisions have only made the situation worse. In 1995, there were between 20,000,000 and 26,000,000 abortions world wide. It is a modern day tragedy.

States cannot even ban the use of perhaps the most evil “medical” procedure of all, partial birth abortion. It is a gruesome procedure and if you really want to read about it, here is a page with diagrams explaining it.

It is as close to modern day child sacrifice that we have. Completely unnecessary and unneeded. There has been no medical showing where this procedure would be necessary, ever.

Oh, and that eugenics part? Check this out:

Abortion, by the numbers, is a racist institution. How so? Because abortion kills a far greater percentage of minority children in America than it does white children. The Alan Guttmacher fact sheet, Facts in Brief, reveals that, “Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.

The Centers for Disease Control, which has been tracking the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions since 1969, gives us these numbers. White women, who make up 75% of the female population in the U.S., account for only 55% of all U.S. abortions. Black women, who make up 12.3% of the females in the U.S, account for 35% of all U.S. abortions. “Other races” of women fill out the remaining 12.5% of the female population and account for 10% of all U.S. abortions.

Margaret Sanger’s plan is working.

Still Not Convinced?

The people who push the most for abortion rights are profiting from abortion. Not just in performing the procedure, but in the sale of the body parts after an abortion. In fact, here is what purports to be a price list from 1999.

These organizations and the people behind them are profiting from this immense tragedy and holocaust.

Comments Welcome

(Note: This post discusses abortion in the second half for illustrative purposes. This post is not intended to reflect the entire compendium of my beliefs about abortion, or to reflect the LDS view about it either. If you have questions about it, you can consult your bishop. In general, abortion is wrong. In general, killing another person in a premeditated fashion is wrong, but it was OK for Nephi to lop off Laban’s head. That’s why God is the final judge.)

From merry olde England comes this story.

It is reported in The Telegraph that a hospice run by a nun, “after taking advice from a solicitor, the clergy and health care professionals” and with the approval of the parents, helped a dying 22 year old man born with Duchenne muscular dystrophy to have his dying wish.

It was something he had wanted to do for several years but due to his physical limitations and the nature of his terminal illness, he was unable to successfully pursue his desire. So in his weakened state and with his own money, the hospice staff helped this young man to procure the services of a prostitute while his parents were out of the house. The parents knew what was scheduled to happen in their absence.

It was not the specific desire of this young man to have sex with a prostitute, but just to have sex. After the event in his own words: “[i]t was not emotionally fulfilling, but the lady was very pleasant and very understanding. I do not know whether I would do it again. I would much rather find a girlfriend, but I have to be realistic.”


He said he did not discuss his decision directly with Sister Frances, who founded the two hospices. “But I know she gave me her support.”

Sister Frances described Mr Wallis as “(sic)delightful, intelligent and aware young man”.

“I know that some people will say ‘You are a Christian foundation. What are you thinking about?’. But we are here for all faiths and none,” she said.

“It is not our job to make moral decisions for our guests. We came to the conclusion that it was our duty of care to support Nick emotionally and to help ensure his physical safety.”

I understand that to be Christian requires service to others, regardless of their bad decisions in the past. As a medical professional professing to be Christian, it is appropriate to provide medical assistance to people who are ill. Whether they be ill from cancer, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, AIDS, Syphilis, or other STD’s contracted from sinful behavior. As a Christian, I am not there to judge people based on their illnesses and then selectively withhold medical treatment, care, or comfort.

As a Christian you are prohibited from aiding and supporting sinful behavior. What these hospice workers, the nun in charge of the hospice, the clergy and the parents did definitely crossed the line.

The title of the article is “Hospice helped dying man lose his virginity”. The article is not clear what role the hospice played in helping him because he contacted and paid for the prostitute on his own. The title of the article and the part about ensuring his physical safety implies that they were providing medical support of some kind for the event. Sexual activity can be stressful, medically speaking. The specific risks from this disease include suffocation and heart problems. According to WebMD: “Most boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy need a wheelchair by age 12 and die before age 20 of a lung infection or heart problems.”

This encounter with a prostitute was a sin that may not have been possible without the aid of trained medical professionals. The nun, clergy, and parents chose to enable this sinful behavior and I am sure it was out of heartfelt concern for their dying patient and son.

What is worse is that the Nun described this man as “delightful” who had as his dying wish to have sex at essentially any cost. What a colossal failure of judgment on several levels.

This is a very sympathetic case but sin is still sin. And God will ultimately judge all of the people involved (and me too). This was still a poor and sinful decision on the parts of many of the parties involved.

This situation reminds me of The Cider House Rules (CHR). [This portion of the post will contain sarcasm, I am tired of ‘bent’ movies and stories showing evil as good. I hope it shows.]

CHR is a movie about abortion. It takes place in New England and has a heroic orphanage doctor that performs abortions when they were still illegal. His assistant is a young man that grew up in the orphanage and believes abortion is wrong. The assistant’s job also includes taking the fetal remains to the incinerator to be destroyed. The young assistant eventually goes off to a different part of New England to get away from the orphanage and to experience more of the world.

While off experiencing life, the young man gets a job harvesting apples. He is staying with a group of black folk (a family if I remember correctly) and sleeping in “the cider house” where the apples were juiced after the harvest. On the wall was a list of rules (“the Cider House Rules”!) that were written for people too dumb to remember to breathe if respiration were not already an autonomic function, much like outdated laws that prohibited abortion and sodomy.

As the young idealistic (and as the movie shows, misguided) medical assistant works through the harvest season, he comes to find out that the teenage daughter of the family is pregnant, cannot afford medical care for her pregnancy, will not be able to work (causing severe financial hardship on the rest of the family), and was also raped by her father who they both continue to work with each day in the orchard.

Instead of doing the right thing and going to the authorities to have the father arrested and finding a maternity home run by nuns or some other facility to care for pregnant and unmarried women and then giving the kid up for adoption, the young assistant sees the error of his outdated and morally incorrect ways and performs an abortion on the young woman.

Yes, back in the dark ages before the glorious liberation of legalized abortion, there were charitable organizations that took care of young mothers with nowhere else to go so that they could receive medical care and the put the kid up for adoption. Oh, the humanity!!! People taking care of people without government intervention or assistance!!!

The wise, heroic doctor makes arrangements for the young assistant to eventually take his place at the orphanage when the doctor is getting ready to retire. Unfortunately, the doctor has become addicted to falling asleep with the aid of ether and in an accident o.d.’s on the ether and the young assistant returns to take the place of the old and wise doctor. The wise old heroic doctor had faked the medical records of the young assistant to help the assistant avoid the draft. The wise old heroic doctor also forged documents to make the assistant “qualified” to work at the orphanage. Yet he is still painted as the morally superior of the two because he also does abortions, I guess.

The message from CHR: because there are some people who are raped and are the most sympathetic characters ever, aborti
on in all other cases should be OK too. Oh, and people are smart enough to make their own decisions so outdated laws that offer commonsensical advice and perhaps even make value judgments were written by people who are so out of touch that those rules shouldn’t even be there anymore.

While both stories contain sympathetic characters (e.g. a young man dying of a terminal illness, an essentially powerless black girl in 1940’s New England) the subjects of the stories are turned into mere tools to be used by the story tellers to justify a sinful act.

We need to not be confused or misled by our feelings for sympathetic cases. We can have all the compassion in the world for the people, but not be confused or think that evil acts are justified in this one case.

Comments are Welcome


E-mail address:

July 2018
« Feb