Before I explain why I think both conservative diva Ann Coulter and Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich of Ohio seem to have a problem with pro-lifers, there needs to be an explanation.
For some reason these days conservatism has been ghettoized, mostly by other conservatives. We know that there are the three stools of modern conservatism. That would be domestic policy, foreign policy and social policy. There are subgroups in there, but that is the conservative coalition. And like it or not, the political vehicle for that is the Republican party.
I consider myself a practioniner of the three stools. No one is more or less important to conservative thinking and or ideas.
But since the end of the Bush 41 presidency in particular, there are those that want to rid one part of the stool or another. Some want to have a more government policy, albeit a conservative one with supposed conservative outcomes. Some do not like what they think is an overly muscular foreign policy and would like almost nothing more than to have a Fortress America world outlook. And of course there are those that want to purge the conservative movement of the icky social conservatives and their outdated view of the culture and the world.
The debate about illegal immigration is somewhat hard to categorize. I would put that under a very important concern of social conservatives. But there are some foreign policy hawks that have legitimate, righteous concerns about unfettered illegal immigration. Especially in the age of world-wide jihad. And even some domestic/economic conservatives that believe there is a serious cost in illegal immigration.
I consider myself very much a pro-lifer. I do not believe in abortion on demand and especially all the way to the ninth month. I do believe in the political reality that if we are to at the very least place restrictions on late-term abortions, there will have to be the exception for incest and rape. Science is in fact and indeed proving that a baby is very developed at the 20th week of a pregnancy. And with the video revelations of the group Center For Medical Progress and the cavalier manner of essentially selling aborted babies as body parts and tissue, it makes this tweet from Ann Coulter very disturbing.
Miss Coulter is a huge supporter of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and especially his seemingly hard-line on illegal immigration. A separate post for another time. But in Miss Coulter's zeal to make illegal immigration the issue of the upcoming presidential election, this is what she was willing to give up:
I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper
Really? Why would you tweet such a thing, Ann? Are you saying the wholesale murder of babies at the hands of the Abortuary Industrial Complex is OK as long as we build that wall and round up all illegal aliens and ship 'em home (only the "good ones" can come back in a expedited process).
The visual of what Miss Coulter tweeted is revolting.
Putting that aside, this is a huge problem of single-issue candidates and their supporters. They are so focused on the one issue that they do not see the forest through the trees.
Mr. Trump is suspect in so many areas of importance to conservatives and even Republicans and especially on abortion, there is no doubt that he really has not given any serious thought to the issue. And make no mistake, it is an issue of importance to many conservatives beyond social conservatives. Especially the fact that the federal government grants over $500,000,000 annually to Planned Parenthood, a private, non-profit organization. Oh, and Planned Parenthood is not supposed to use the money to perform abortions. But if you really think that there is some accounting of that federal, re: taxpayers, money, there is sure as hell no viable proof of it.
I would expect Miss Coulter to mock the other side as in liberals, leftists and the like. But to casually tweet such a sentiment, on a Sunday no less, shows something unbecoming of one that I have liked over the years for her clear-eyed view of the world.
But Miss Coulter is simply a supporter of a candidate and based on one position.
Ohio Republican John Kasich is an actual candidate for president. And it appears that he does not like that the Republican party talks too much about abortion.
Now to his credit, Gov. Kasich has made it harder for the Abortuary Industrial Complex to do business in Ohio. And when he served in congress, he was a very good congressman on abortion issues.
But the dirty secret is that the dude who is running Team Kasich is named John Weaver, a GOP consultant class loser if there ever was one. Mr. Weaver hates the conservative base that is the GOP. He really believes in somehow gaining respectability by narrowing and not expanding the field. After all, the greatest failure of Mr. Weaver's illustrious career was that of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in 2000. Yeah, like any other political consultant, he can point to a success or two. Notably he did help Michigan GOP governor, Rick Snyder, win in 2010. But overall, Mr. Weaver is a weasel and a proven loser.
So, maybe this is why Mr. Kasich, again noted to be pro-life, felt a need to say the following:
I think (abortion) is an important issue, but I think there's many other issues that are really critical. Early childhood. Infant mortality. The environment. Education. I think we focus too much on one issue, and now that gay marriage is kind of off the table, we're kind of down to one social issue.
Where oh where does one start?!
Look, abortion is an important issue because it determines overall what kind of society we are. If we look at babies as nothing, then all the other issues that Gov. Kasich rightfully pointed out are not all that important. The whole reason of being that there is the Republican party is the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that all are created equal. Not equal outcomes in life, but created equal. That is why the GOP was so against slavery. And in a similar vein, why since Ronald Reagan it has taken the righteous position of being pro-life.
Had Gov. Kasich actually made it a part of his litany rather than something separate, it would make the abortion issue a part of rather than a separate issue. For all of the issues are extremely important that he mentioned in his rip on pro-lifers.
And worst of all is that he falls into the leftist trap (and consultant-class Republicans) that there have only been two social issues that animate GOP voters. Abortion and same-sex marriage.
In fact and indeed, GOP voters look at early childhood development, infant mortality and education as equal social issues. Throw in criminal justice and prison reform and there is more than just abortion and same-sex marriage.
Conservatism and by extension the Republican party is a coalition. And for the most part there is agreement on issues. But it is tiresome to see when trying to push a certain agenda conservatives seem to like to mock those of us that are pro-life and that we are too focused on that one issue. It is why I am not a one-issue kinda guy. If I were I would sit out more elections than participate in. The one issue to me is the United States moving in and beginning a conservative Renaissance. Short-shifting our partners in coalition is not going to help us get there.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
The Abortchuary Industrial Complex Is In Trouble In Texas And The Left Is Crazy About It
Yep, like many other states in the Union, Texas is trying to take action to rein in the Abortchuary Industrial Complex in wake of the death machine that was the abortion practice of "Dr." Kermit Gosnell.
In fact, the Texas state legislature was just to pass one of the more restrictive laws in the nation in regards to late term abortions last week.
That is until one state senator named Wendy Davis temporarily derailed it by mounting an 10 filibuster in hopes of killing the bill.
Too bad that it is but a temporary win for the AIC.
For Gov. Rick Perry simply called another special session of the state legislature (a part-time legislature, one a Californian can only dream of!) that began yesterday. In fact, Sen. Davis has said that she will not mount another filibuster.
What is it that has the professional left and or abortion defenders panties in a bunch?
It is Senate Bill 5.
The bill does update abortion regulations that are needed. And yes, it does ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. Here it is in a nutshell courtesy of the Wikipedia link:
Texas Senate Bill 5 is a list of measures that would add and update abortion regulations in Texas. These measures include banning abortions past twenty weeks of gestation, mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and to require that clinics meet the same standards as other health-care facilities in the state.[1][2][3][4]
All of the main points are for the health of the mother and the one regarding no abortions after 20 weeks to protect the unborn baby.
Yes, since a baby at 20 weeks can feel pain and at 28 weeks, seven months, can very well live outside the womb, it is to protect a baby.
The abortchuary left cannot have any of that.
Why they will argue that the Gosnell case was aberration. That it is not the way abortion clinics work. That they do not need to be more regulated. In fact, some argue that there are too many regulations at abortion clinics. Unreal, but true.
One of the things that the left needs to do is never, ever refer to the baby as such. That is why they will call the baby a fetus. It is clinical. It takes the humanity out of what is inside the woman's belly. And that is the point.
Thus they do have a hard time admitting that many, many premature babies are viable human beings that can live a very productive life.
No matter. to the abortchuary crowd. I mean, take a look at this choice photo from "righteous" pro-abortion demonstrators today.
Yeah, so cute, aren't they?!
Yes, these gals are frightening because they probably really believe their signs. That they are truth telling.
Oh, and the Mainstream Media, why they have made Sen. Davis the poster gal for their narrative of how awful and mean the Republicans are. That they are taking away a "right" for a woman or young girl to kill their baby after 20 weeks. Because you know, it takes a while for a woman and or young girl to make such a decision. Not the decision to have sex, but you know, how and when to end the pregnancy.
And look, look at all the gals protesting around the state capitol in Austin, Texas yesterday.
WOW! How totally awesome. The crowd was estimated at about 5,000.
Oh, did anyone mention that many of these protesters were actually paid rabble-rousers? Probably not. But Katie Pavlich over at Townhall.com caught on really quick. So one wonders how many of these gals were actually from Texas in the first place? And how out of touch they are.
Most polling shows that roughly 60% of Texas voters favor the restrictions and protections proposed by the legislature and Gov. Perry.
The problem again is that science is actually hurting the pro-abortion cause. For as long as children under nine months have a viable chance at life, it gets harder and harder to suggest that they are but a blob of nothing. A fetus.
If this legislation passes and is signed by Gov. Perry as expected, it will be the biggest blow to the Abortchuary Industrial Complex anywhere in the United States.
But also, science and the people are coming to realize that maybe, it is a human life after all inside a woman and that is changing many minds on this issue.
In fact, the Texas state legislature was just to pass one of the more restrictive laws in the nation in regards to late term abortions last week.
That is until one state senator named Wendy Davis temporarily derailed it by mounting an 10 filibuster in hopes of killing the bill.
Too bad that it is but a temporary win for the AIC.
For Gov. Rick Perry simply called another special session of the state legislature (a part-time legislature, one a Californian can only dream of!) that began yesterday. In fact, Sen. Davis has said that she will not mount another filibuster.
What is it that has the professional left and or abortion defenders panties in a bunch?
It is Senate Bill 5.
The bill does update abortion regulations that are needed. And yes, it does ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. Here it is in a nutshell courtesy of the Wikipedia link:
Texas Senate Bill 5 is a list of measures that would add and update abortion regulations in Texas. These measures include banning abortions past twenty weeks of gestation, mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and to require that clinics meet the same standards as other health-care facilities in the state.[1][2][3][4]
All of the main points are for the health of the mother and the one regarding no abortions after 20 weeks to protect the unborn baby.
Yes, since a baby at 20 weeks can feel pain and at 28 weeks, seven months, can very well live outside the womb, it is to protect a baby.
The abortchuary left cannot have any of that.
Why they will argue that the Gosnell case was aberration. That it is not the way abortion clinics work. That they do not need to be more regulated. In fact, some argue that there are too many regulations at abortion clinics. Unreal, but true.
One of the things that the left needs to do is never, ever refer to the baby as such. That is why they will call the baby a fetus. It is clinical. It takes the humanity out of what is inside the woman's belly. And that is the point.
Thus they do have a hard time admitting that many, many premature babies are viable human beings that can live a very productive life.
No matter. to the abortchuary crowd. I mean, take a look at this choice photo from "righteous" pro-abortion demonstrators today.
Yeah, so cute, aren't they?!
Yes, these gals are frightening because they probably really believe their signs. That they are truth telling.
Oh, and the Mainstream Media, why they have made Sen. Davis the poster gal for their narrative of how awful and mean the Republicans are. That they are taking away a "right" for a woman or young girl to kill their baby after 20 weeks. Because you know, it takes a while for a woman and or young girl to make such a decision. Not the decision to have sex, but you know, how and when to end the pregnancy.
And look, look at all the gals protesting around the state capitol in Austin, Texas yesterday.
WOW! How totally awesome. The crowd was estimated at about 5,000.
Oh, did anyone mention that many of these protesters were actually paid rabble-rousers? Probably not. But Katie Pavlich over at Townhall.com caught on really quick. So one wonders how many of these gals were actually from Texas in the first place? And how out of touch they are.
Most polling shows that roughly 60% of Texas voters favor the restrictions and protections proposed by the legislature and Gov. Perry.
The problem again is that science is actually hurting the pro-abortion cause. For as long as children under nine months have a viable chance at life, it gets harder and harder to suggest that they are but a blob of nothing. A fetus.
If this legislation passes and is signed by Gov. Perry as expected, it will be the biggest blow to the Abortchuary Industrial Complex anywhere in the United States.
But also, science and the people are coming to realize that maybe, it is a human life after all inside a woman and that is changing many minds on this issue.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Todd Akin To Take That One Back
This post may be old before it gets published, but if Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin is still the official Republican nominee for the senate seat against incumbent Democrat Clare McCaskill at this time tomorrow night, the dude has a real death wish.
You see, Mr. Akin is an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Mr. Akin opposes all abortion no matter the circumstance. Mr. Akin opposes any abortion even when the life of the mother is threatened. If an incesteous relationship was involved. And in the case of rape.
It was this question from a St. Louis reporter, Charles Jaco, that Mr. Akin, unbelievably answered this way:
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Legitimate rape? A way to shut down that whole thing?
Oh, where the devil to start?
So, let me back up a bit.
Let me make the obvious political observation.
Mr. Akin should not have been suckered into to going down this road. It is what reporters, and I do not know Mr. Jaco's credentials other than here on Wikipedia, love to do to social conservatives, or from here on out this post, So Cons. They love to take them over the cliff. Mr. Akin went off in a rather spectacular manner if I do say so myself.
Now, here is the whole transcript in regards to the abortion question. Had I been Mr. Akin, I would have affirmed my pro-life credentials and when Mr. Jaco wanted to go down the specific road, on the issue of rape, I would have answered something like this.
"Mr. Jaco, I have affirmed my pro-life credentials and will be a voice for the unborn if I am fortunate enough to be elected senator. But the over-arching issues in this election is the massive federal deficit and debt. It is the federal government and implementing Obamacare. It is the over reach of the federal government. It is to return to actually reading and legislating constitutionally. It is to restore our rightful place respected and feared around the world."
But, nooooooo. Mr. Akin went head first into that pool.
So let dissect the comment itself because while being totally heartless and cold, it is pretty much not even factual.
Notice how Mr. Akin uses and interesting word. That word is slice. I may read way more than it is, but slice could be a subliminal message about the abortion proceedure itself.
What does he mean by "legitimate rape"?
Last I checked, when a gal says NO to wanting sexual relations and the dude she is with thinks that is a "hell yeah" but reverse psychology on him and forces himself on her, and her continuing to at this point scream NO, that is rape. Period. Are there situations in which women claim to be raped and in fact were not? Yes, that does happen. And sometimes, it is to cover a consenual encounter that produces a child. A child that is not wanted by a mother and father. But most women, the overwhelming majority, who have been raped do know the difference. Again NO means NO. And I am wondering the names of these doctors that he has spoken with that told him about "legitimate" rapes and this theory, one I have never heard of, shutting the whole thing down. Maybe what Mr. Akin really means is that the rape victim ends up taking the advice of former Texas Republican gubenitorial candidate Clayton Williams, "If it is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." Oh yeah, Mr. Williams did not win that race. One Ann Richards went on to win.
Even the way that Mr. Akin ended the comment is bizarre.
To state the obvious, that the rapist should be punished. And that it would not be right to "attack" the child.
Ahh, but it should be some punishment on the rapist. What does that mean? Some punishment? Hey, how about hardcore punishment? You know, real prison time?
The problem is that judgeing by the previous comment, Mr. Akin generally has a hard to time believing a woman to be raped in the first place.
And that is a serious problem.
There are some really bad dudes out there. They do horrible things to women. Some beat 'em. Some trash-talk 'em. Some rape 'em.
Again, for Mr. Akin's benefit, when a man forces himself on a woman sexually and she says NO and he keeps going, it is R A P E. Period. No qualifiers.
Now, while I would have answered the question differently, what if Mr. Akin had simply said what he really meant to say? That he makes no exception in the case of rape? Would he be on the way to being forced out of this senate race? Probably not. It would have crystalized his position, one that I do not agree with.
Anyone that has read this blog with any regularity know that I am pro-life.
But I am pro-life with these three exceptions.
Threat to the life of the mother.
Incest.
Rape.
It is a legitimate position. One of the reasons that I am pro-life is seeing the effects that abortion does have on all involved. But when a mother's life is threatened, with no hope of survival for either the baby or mother, and she can make that decision, she should have that oppertunity. If a mother was involved in an incesteous relationship, I would not expect her to bring a child to full term. There are a lot of reason why that should not be expected. And the same for rape.
If one does not think I am absolutist on the issue, I am not.
In the perfect world, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, abortion laws would return to the states and guess what?
Some states would ban abortions.
Some states would allow abortion with very strong restrictions.
Some states would allow abortion with little restriction.
Some states would allow abortion in any circumstance.
Federalism, which delineates power to the states, is not perfect. Why some think that it is a messy thing. But it had worked well until the statists twisted it around to give the central government more power.
But back to Mr. Akin.
Why should he get out of this race? I mean, the majority of Missouri Republicans voted to have him be the candidate for the senate, right? In fact. polls showed Mr. Akin pretty far ahead of Sen. McCaskill until this kerfuffle.
Because this man is not only a loose cannon, but uninformed to make such an assertion that he had to know would potentially come back to haunt him. He made this such an issue of his campaign that he gave a convoluted answer that showed a window on a man that, well he is so out there on a position that made him come off totally with no heart and or compassion.
Abortion is a serious issue. It is important to have serious people on the side of life. Mr. Akin comes off as a buffoon. And one that can not be trusted. And one that could very much cost the Republican party potential control of the senate. And give the Democrats ammo that they should not have.
For the sake of the Missouri Republican party and the national Republican party, Congressman Todd Akin must withdraw from the race.
You see, Mr. Akin is an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Mr. Akin opposes all abortion no matter the circumstance. Mr. Akin opposes any abortion even when the life of the mother is threatened. If an incesteous relationship was involved. And in the case of rape.
It was this question from a St. Louis reporter, Charles Jaco, that Mr. Akin, unbelievably answered this way:
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Legitimate rape? A way to shut down that whole thing?
Oh, where the devil to start?
So, let me back up a bit.
Let me make the obvious political observation.
Mr. Akin should not have been suckered into to going down this road. It is what reporters, and I do not know Mr. Jaco's credentials other than here on Wikipedia, love to do to social conservatives, or from here on out this post, So Cons. They love to take them over the cliff. Mr. Akin went off in a rather spectacular manner if I do say so myself.
Now, here is the whole transcript in regards to the abortion question. Had I been Mr. Akin, I would have affirmed my pro-life credentials and when Mr. Jaco wanted to go down the specific road, on the issue of rape, I would have answered something like this.
"Mr. Jaco, I have affirmed my pro-life credentials and will be a voice for the unborn if I am fortunate enough to be elected senator. But the over-arching issues in this election is the massive federal deficit and debt. It is the federal government and implementing Obamacare. It is the over reach of the federal government. It is to return to actually reading and legislating constitutionally. It is to restore our rightful place respected and feared around the world."
But, nooooooo. Mr. Akin went head first into that pool.
So let dissect the comment itself because while being totally heartless and cold, it is pretty much not even factual.
Notice how Mr. Akin uses and interesting word. That word is slice. I may read way more than it is, but slice could be a subliminal message about the abortion proceedure itself.
What does he mean by "legitimate rape"?
Last I checked, when a gal says NO to wanting sexual relations and the dude she is with thinks that is a "hell yeah" but reverse psychology on him and forces himself on her, and her continuing to at this point scream NO, that is rape. Period. Are there situations in which women claim to be raped and in fact were not? Yes, that does happen. And sometimes, it is to cover a consenual encounter that produces a child. A child that is not wanted by a mother and father. But most women, the overwhelming majority, who have been raped do know the difference. Again NO means NO. And I am wondering the names of these doctors that he has spoken with that told him about "legitimate" rapes and this theory, one I have never heard of, shutting the whole thing down. Maybe what Mr. Akin really means is that the rape victim ends up taking the advice of former Texas Republican gubenitorial candidate Clayton Williams, "If it is inevitable, just relax and enjoy it." Oh yeah, Mr. Williams did not win that race. One Ann Richards went on to win.
Even the way that Mr. Akin ended the comment is bizarre.
To state the obvious, that the rapist should be punished. And that it would not be right to "attack" the child.
Ahh, but it should be some punishment on the rapist. What does that mean? Some punishment? Hey, how about hardcore punishment? You know, real prison time?
The problem is that judgeing by the previous comment, Mr. Akin generally has a hard to time believing a woman to be raped in the first place.
And that is a serious problem.
There are some really bad dudes out there. They do horrible things to women. Some beat 'em. Some trash-talk 'em. Some rape 'em.
Again, for Mr. Akin's benefit, when a man forces himself on a woman sexually and she says NO and he keeps going, it is R A P E. Period. No qualifiers.
Now, while I would have answered the question differently, what if Mr. Akin had simply said what he really meant to say? That he makes no exception in the case of rape? Would he be on the way to being forced out of this senate race? Probably not. It would have crystalized his position, one that I do not agree with.
Anyone that has read this blog with any regularity know that I am pro-life.
But I am pro-life with these three exceptions.
Threat to the life of the mother.
Incest.
Rape.
It is a legitimate position. One of the reasons that I am pro-life is seeing the effects that abortion does have on all involved. But when a mother's life is threatened, with no hope of survival for either the baby or mother, and she can make that decision, she should have that oppertunity. If a mother was involved in an incesteous relationship, I would not expect her to bring a child to full term. There are a lot of reason why that should not be expected. And the same for rape.
If one does not think I am absolutist on the issue, I am not.
In the perfect world, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, abortion laws would return to the states and guess what?
Some states would ban abortions.
Some states would allow abortion with very strong restrictions.
Some states would allow abortion with little restriction.
Some states would allow abortion in any circumstance.
Federalism, which delineates power to the states, is not perfect. Why some think that it is a messy thing. But it had worked well until the statists twisted it around to give the central government more power.
But back to Mr. Akin.
Why should he get out of this race? I mean, the majority of Missouri Republicans voted to have him be the candidate for the senate, right? In fact. polls showed Mr. Akin pretty far ahead of Sen. McCaskill until this kerfuffle.
Because this man is not only a loose cannon, but uninformed to make such an assertion that he had to know would potentially come back to haunt him. He made this such an issue of his campaign that he gave a convoluted answer that showed a window on a man that, well he is so out there on a position that made him come off totally with no heart and or compassion.
Abortion is a serious issue. It is important to have serious people on the side of life. Mr. Akin comes off as a buffoon. And one that can not be trusted. And one that could very much cost the Republican party potential control of the senate. And give the Democrats ammo that they should not have.
For the sake of the Missouri Republican party and the national Republican party, Congressman Todd Akin must withdraw from the race.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Wanna Know Why Some People Hate Tim Tebow? Because He Was Not Aborted
Denver Bronco starting quarterback Tim Tebow sure knows how to get under quite a lot of people's skin.
I mean, I don't hate the dude other than the fact he is the starting QB on Satan's team itself, the Broncos.
A digression for the pro football fans.
During the 80s, when my beloved Cleveland Browns were a really good team and on the thrust of a Super Bowl appearance not once, but twice, a certain guy stopped that dream. That guy is Mr. Ed himself, John Elway. He broke many a Browns fan's hearts twice preventing us from at least one Super Bowl appearance.
Hence, the Denver Broncos are Satan's team to every Browns fan!
But there is a real hate on for Mr. Tebow.
Well, one reason and what seems to be a starting point is that he is a. . .Christian. One that is not afraid to speak about it. And not afraid to show his thanks to God for his talent of being a professional football quarterback. The term for his showing thanks to God is now called Tebowing.

The above is Tebowing. And to some, it is a grotesque way of him showing his Christian faith. A short prayer after scoring a touchdown.
Funny, I do not remember that being the case when a former Los Angeles Dodger did something quite similar after the Dodgers won the 1988 World Series.
Orel Hershiser won game six of the 1988 World Series and when he pitched the final out, he dropped to one knee, put his finger in the air to thank God for his performance. In fact, it seemed to be celebrated rather than condemned. And while he was on the Dodgers, he was a member of Lake Avenue Church, a large mega church here in Pasadena, California.
But what drives the Tebow haters really crazy is something that they will not openly admit but is the truth.
That his mother did not abort him when she had a chance.
While pregnant with Mr. Tebow, his mother, Pamela, was diagnosed with a pathogenic amoeba. And the drugs used to treat it cause the baby to have a severe placental abruption. In reading about it, the risks of going through with the pregnancy is rather high. But Mrs. Tebow went through with the pregnancy. One can only assume that she made an educated as well as prayerful decision to carry out the pregnancy.
In other words, Mrs. Tebow made a choice. She chose life over aborting Tim Tebow. And neither was shy about pointing that out.
During Super Bowl XLIV, there were two 30 second ads sponsored by Focus On The Family, a conservative Christian group, that told the Tebow story. And it did not explicitly use the A word, it made a strong case that a woman does not have to chose an abortion. Even when the odds are against her having a successful pregnancy.
And since then, the pro-abortionists and the anti-Christians have teamed up to make Mr. Tebow seem like some kind of freak.
Many have mocked the open display of Mr. Tebow thanking God for his talent. Even some fellow NFLers mock his "Tebowing". And leftist radio talker Bill Press is so "disgusted" by Mr. Tebow that he wants his to STFU* about all his "Jesus talk".
Really, does anyone really think that if Mr. Tebow was not so vocal about his stand on abortion that he would be so viciously attacked? Yeah, I hear those crickets chirping.
There are a lot of serious Christian athletes that go on about their business and no one hears or reads about it like it is something odd. But take on the abortuary complex and boy, that is where the knives, or coat hangers, come out.
Mr. Tebow is a big boy and I am certain that he knows being vocal about his faith is a turn off for many. But it is also allowing for people to be more forthcoming about their own faith journey. And that is a good thing.
But for the abortionists and their allies, Tim Tebow is real threat. And he must be mocked and stopped.
And that is the real reason so much hate is heaped on Tim Tebow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

