“His Mind…and World Peace.”

 HEADLINE READS: PETA Wants Eight Belles Jockey Suspended After Filly’s Death

Animal Rights

People who harm and torture animals for the shear bizarre pleasure it gives them, are unwell mentallyand spiritually [1]. They aren’t unwell, however, simply because a group of psychiatrists says so, or because PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) deems such people the scum of the earth. The Bible, in fact, is clear: animals, big and small, were created by God. The whole creation belongs to Him. God says He takes care of the birds of the air and the beasts of the fields. If God takes care of them, then that must mean He thinks they are important to His creation. Animals must have a purpose on this earth otherwise God wouldn’t have created them. Therefore, the unreasonable, cruel and unusual treatment of animals is simply ungodly.

But the question some people have been debating for years is whether or not animals have—or should have—rights. To answer this question we need to start at the very beginning, in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. There is something God told Adam and Eve, as recorded in the first chapter, that is worth noting here:

Then God said,…let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. Genesis 1: 26

Two verses later, God blesses Adam and Eve, and again repeats his command for them to have dominion over “every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). The Hebrew word translated dominion means, “to tread down, rule, and reign.”[2]

In the ninth chapter of Genesis, after the flood, God blesses Noah and his sons and tells them that all animals on the earth shall fear them. God, essentially, reiterates the very thing He told Adam and Eve. God goes on to explain His specific purpose for giving Noah and his family animals:

. . . They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given all things, even as the green herbs. Genesis 9:2, 3

One of God’s main purposes for creating animal life was to provide nourishment for the human beings He had created in His own image. Human beings are to rule and reign over animal life, not the other way around. It is not ungodly for someone to raise chickens, cows, or goats, for example, for the purpose of feeding people. God ordained it to be so. Yet, if a Christian chooses to adhere to a vegetarian lifestyle, that too, is ok. According to God, He gave plant life to be used as food, as well. Whether someone eats meat or doesn’t eat meat, should not cause division or contention among Christians.[3]

Here is what is an abomination to God: human beings placing the value of animal life above human life. Animals do not have rights in the same way that humans have rights, because the Creator never gave animals equal footing with mankind. God created them for food, He says we should care for animals, and He even says animals should be given rest.[4]

However, God’s Word is clear: in no way, shape, or form should animal life be given preference over, or be considered no different than, human beings. The freedom with which people in our society refer to their pets as their “children” is something that is becoming increasingly popular and rarely receives a critical word. Whether it be in the privacy of their own homes, or in front of cameras and microphones in the media, people have become extremely comfortable—and even proud—to say they consider their house-trained animals part of their family, and no different from a child. [5]

Some people won’t even consider having a child without first keeping a house pet—aving a pet, they argue, is a good and necessary training ground for enduring the rigors of caring for a baby. Such non-biblical, heretical thinking is only one example of human beings adding to the Word of God, and attempting to reorder God’s flawless creation. Such thinking is just as shameful as someone who believes there is no difference between a newborn baby and a lab rat. [6]

Animals have a God-given purpose on this earth. Let’s honor God’s order, and keep animal life in its designated place.

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved “The Truth of the Matter: 101″ (Excerpt)

This video is about 10 minutes long. If you don’t have that kinda time, fast forward to the 6:25 mark. I’d like to know how her words impress you… or not. Leave a comment below if you’d like to share your thoughts.

**Hismindandworldpeace is not responsible for any content on YouTube. View cautiously.**

Feel free to share. Thanks for reading.

Hat tip: Heart of Flesh

Star Parker is the founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). As a young single mother, Ms. Parker spent years abusing the welfare system. She was arrested for shoplifting, and lived a promiscuous life that eventually led her to abort 4 of her babies. Today, Star is an outspoken and respected opponent of the welfare system and abortion. She credits her becoming a Christian as the turning point of her tumultuous life. Star is the author of three books, including, Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats: From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger (1998). She is a public speaker, and a syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service. She can also be seen on various television programs; Star appeard as a co-host for ABC’s The View in June 2007.

Star Parker: A Voice for the Voiceless and A Woman Changing the World for Better.

Feel free to share. Thanks for reading.

Reader, bruisecolours, has returned with a response to our first exchange and the video that inspired the debate.  Follow Part 2 of the debate below: (my comments in red; bruisecolours comments are always original, unedited, not even for grammar, etc)

I’ll be traveling for the next few days, but I do plan on finishing my response.  For now, I have a response about the deception of the callers verses the intelligence of the PP operators.

Safe travel!

I’ll start with the operators, since I think it is a messier issue.  I feel have to somewhat expand my earlier interpretation.  The PP operators were either not intelligent, or they are willfully participating in racial genocide.  If they accept the premise of the caller, that genocide against African American babies is somehow desirable, they are detestable people regardless of what one thinks about abortions.  That would be simple.  However, I do think that I was right to say they were unintelligent.  However, there are a few possible interpretations of that.  They could be unintelligent because they did not understand the implications of what the caller was saying.  I find that highly unlikely, but possible.  Also possible, they knew the call was a ruse, and accepted the money to spite a anti-abortion activist.  Unintelligent because it puts incriminating evidence in the hands of their adversaries.  The most likely scenario is that PP operators are instructed to take money no matter what.  So if some racist idiot calls up, go ahead and part a fool and his money.  Unintelligent is perhaps not the right word, but rather Sleazy and amoral (which is bad, because amorality is an immoral position if you ask me), because it lends tacit support, even if not intended, to the goals of that individual.

Thanks for expanding on this. I do agree with just about everything you’ve written. I do not think the PP operators knew the call was a set-up. Bottom line: because Planned Parenthood was founded on lies and immoral intentions, I don’t know why I am surprised to see people,who lack integrity, working for such an outfit.

As for the deceivers, I take your point, that if stopping abortion is accepted as a moral goal, and if you concede, as you seem to have in this case, that the ends can justify the means, it may be acceptable to use less than perfect means.  To go with the Catholic order of Commandments, you’ve already compromised Commandment 8 if you deceive in this manner.   It is differnt to deceive in the way you say Jesus did, or the way make-up does, than to deceive to try to hurt others, even if you think they do evil.  This would be like entrapment in criminal law.  You cannot bring someone to justice in an unjust manner, and on this, the Bible and secular law seem to agree. 

First, The Catholic Order of Commandments (whatever they may be, I am not familiar), have no bearing on my life or faith. I’m a One Book girl.

Secondly, regarding this matter of entrapment. According to one definition of entrapment, it is: “A defense to criminal charges alleging that agents of the government induced a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not have committed.” I believe the underlying words in this definition are “otherwise would not have committed.” May I suggest that PPFA would, and already have, committed such crimes…and worse? Were the callers dishonest? Obviously. Unfair? Hardly. Unfair is what is happening to the babies in need of protection. Maybe in a court of law the callers would be found guilty of entrapment, but I believe at the very least, PPFA’s agenda is being exposed, and for that I am grateful.

Lastly, an observation:  secular law and the Bible don’t always agree–if they did, we wouldn’t even be entertaining this matter because abortion would be illegal.

I would argue that it would be far better to try to stop abortion through comprehensive sex education, including teaching the use of contraception. 

Comprehensive Sex Education– Do you know what this is? First, let me tell you what PPFA and their allies want people to BELIEVE: (in their own paraphrased words) “Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) is the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Young people are so confused by the many messages being thrown at them regarding sex. They need unbiased information so that they can make good decisions and stay healthy. Abstinence only education is not commonsense and young people are lacking life-saving information as a result. Abstinence only education is dangerous and unrealistic!”

Now, here is the translation: “CSE is the best way to keep young people coming to our facilities/clinics. Without CSE, young people won’t have a need to purchase our cool condoms, and pick-up their birth control pills. Without CSE, young people will not come into our clinics to receive regular check-ups and gynecological exams, just to make sure that the safe sex they are engaging in hasn’t turned unsafe. Without CSE, young people will think sex is only for those who are married and mature enough to handle the natural consequence of it: pregnancy. Without CSE, they won’t be exposed to all of the benefits of being able to have sex and not worry about pregnancy. Without CSE, young people will not know how to enjoy life to the fullest and explore their naturally sexual selves. Witout CSE, young people might actually believe that self-control is possible with regards to restraining sexual desire and urges. If they believe that, they might just act on those beliefs. And well, that would put us out of business. We don’t want that. We can’t afford that. Jobs, incomes are at stake. We are, by far, the largest abortion provider in America, and we need to maintain that status. Without CSE, young women and men won’t know that when the condom fails, or they miss taking Monday’s Pill, or they just can’t be bothered with it all (after all, they are young and youth tend to be absent minded), PPFA will be right there, ready and waiting to remind them of their options for avoiding the consequences of their own choices. Abortion being the most lucrative…but we’ve got others that will still put some change in our account. It’s just one of the reasons why we direct people to this page constantly while visiting our site.”

With or with out it, the sex will happen. However, in one case, the chance of an abortion is 99% or so less (depending on the form of contraception).  If the ends can justify the means, I think this is a far more honest way of stopping abortions, and if I were a waging man, I would say a far more effective way also.

Since, as you are well aware by now, I am far less concerned with the “honesty” of how abortions are stopped than I am with stopping them all together. I am also far more concerned with young people understanding why engaging in sexual relations, and having multiple sexual partners (and starting at a young age) is not what’s best. Those things are what need to be understood. Furthermore, why do we stress teaching children (from a very young age) the importance of understanding that behaviors have consequences, only to destress that oh-so-crucial lesson as they get older? CSE gives young people a false sense of security– It wraps very serious issues and all of the very real, and unavoidable stuff that goes along with sexual relations, into a nice package, and delivers it to people who are too young, too hormonally driven and too lied to to know how to make sense of it all.

I want to discuss the issue of One Nation Under God, but I don’t think the path we are heading with it is so relevant here.  I’ll put a post up with my thoughts when I get a chance.  I’ll let you know when so you have a chance to respond.

I want to know why the path we are heading in is not relevant before I agree to take another path . . .

When I finish the rest, I’ll post my response, but I think this clears up somethings, or at least raises some other issues.

Bring it on! (I say that nicely.)

I think you address many important points, but you focus on the questions “What is the unborn?” with quotes, bold, underline and italics, repeating it many times. 

Sorry about the abuse of bold and italics…I can’t very well raise my voice in writing, so I do what I can to get the point across, I suppose.

So I suppose that is where you think the main argument it, and I think I’ve granted that I don’t have answers.  It’s obvious that we disagree, but I will say I can respect and understand you position.  I can tell you what I believe, and I can tell you how biological and medical knowledge colours my answer, but I am sure you have heard mos of it before. 

Yes, it is obvious we disagree, and yes, I have probably heard it all before. Considering that at its earliest stages, a human baby, with 23 chromosomes from daddy and the same amount from mommy, plus about 50,000 genes from each parent, has everything within that living cell to determine everything about him or her– that living cell is unique and living, just at a different stage of life. Once killed, it can never return…it is unique and complex and alive.

But the truth is, neither of us know for sure, and we have different position because of our knowledge bases are different, and because the things we believe are differnt.  I don’t want to give the impression that that I “believe” in science like a religion.  What I am saying is that because of the facts and theories that science has uncovered and because of my own moral examination of the issue, my own moral beliefs, I fell a certain way about the issue.  And I think you could say something along the same lines but with the opposite conclution.

The truth is I do know for sure, and I am not afraid to claim I know something absolutely when it comes to the issues of human lives. Let’s say you are right,  however, and no one knows for sure: wouldn’t it be better (at least) to err on the side of caution? And yes, our worldviews color how we view this issue. Finally, regarding sciences theories and facts: What has been discovered regarding the barbaric, painful, unnatural and gruesome practice that is abortion?

I do wish that more people with a religious perspective were willing to accept comprehensive sex education and contraception.  I think those are programs that could really help reduce the abortion rate.  The recent study from Florida painted an ugly picture.

And I really wish that more people would be willing to accept a loving God who has the answers to all of this: do what He says. It IS for your own protection–and unlike the Pill, and condoms–it never fails.

I also think stem cell research from embryos left over after in vitro fertilization is an area of research that should be taken very seriously.  I will say this, I don’t believe that eight cells that have never been inside the womb are a baby.  IFV can be a life creating and life saving technology.  I have a hard time imagining this to be evil.

It is my position that a human embryo–a tiny, young human baby– should not and cannot be deliberately destroyed in an ethical manner.

If one wants to save lives and find cures for diseases, I have a great solution: stop aborting the very lives that come-up with life saving remedies, cures, and inventions.

In this post, I asked the following question:

Why would anyone want to vote for someone who advocates the murder of innocent human life?

In this post/debate, a regular reader proposed the following in response to the above:

If you want to define advocating broadly enough to include pro-choice politicians, wouldn’t it also be acceptable to indite those who fight wars in which there is “collateral damage,” i.e. innocent men women and children are killed?

This question was proposed at just the right time, as I have been contemplating this issue for over a month. For it was then, while driving my children around the neighborhood, that I came across a bumper sticker just like the one pictured above.  The sticker really caught my attention and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. I’m done thinking now, and I have come to a conclusion . . . 

 What is war?

One definition says war is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict or antagonism; a struggle between opposing forces.

I cannot think of any war being declared and pursued without the use of some kind(s) of weapons. War is hostile, after all, and armed conflict. When there are arms (weaponry, not limbs), it is reasonable to assume, and even expect, that there will be injuries and even deaths. This is the very nature of war. Can you even think of war and not think of people being injured or dying? War is hostile conflict.

Why do wars need to be fought?

Unfortunately, Rodney King’s dreams aren’t coming to pass: people just can’t get along! Wars have been fought from antiquity to present day, and will continue so long as man is on the face of the earth. Individuals aren’t the only ones with enemies: states, nations,  and countries have allies and they have enemies. An enemy wants to overcome his opponent; he is concerned with winning the war, and achieving whatever particular goals he has in mind (i.e. land, power). Nations have armies because nations have enemies. The armed forces are called-upon to defend the nation and protect its interests. When the enemy threatens, attacks or invades, he is not greeted with cookies and milk. He is greeted with a counter-attack. It is the right (as prescribed by law), of the people and the state, to defend themselves and their property. This is why The Declaration of Independence says, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” The US Constitution says Congress has the power to “declare war,” and “call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

Casualties of War & Collateral Damage

A war without casualties is not a war, it’s a conversation. Again, the nature of war is hostile, violent and bloody. There will be casualties, and sometimes those casualties aren’t directly involved in combat. When innocent people (their property, goods, etc) are unintentionally damaged and killed by hostile fire, the unintended targets are called collateral damage. So long as the damage is not excessive, it is lawful. Advanced technology now makes it possible to minimize collateral damage as much as possible. In war, people die, and sometimes those people are men, women and children who were never directly engaged in the fight. Wars are fought on land where people–innocent and guilty–live. Persons who inhabit any nation should understand that war is always a possibility so long as that nation has enemies. Therefore, if one chooses to live in a nation that has enemies, he is accepting the possibility that his life could be taken by the hands of the enemy. Injury and death is the natural and expected consequence of war, because the very nature of war is hostile and violent. These facts aren’t pretty, but they are reality.

What is pregnancy?

Pregnancy in humans is the state of carrying a developing human life within a woman’s body; it is the period from conception to birth, and that life is carried in the uterus of a woman. In humans, pregnancy is the result of a man and a woman engaging in sexual intercourse. During that activity, a man’s sperm fertilizes a woman’s egg and a human baby begins to develop over the period of approximately 9 months. Pregnancy, then, is the natural and expected outcome of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Although, babies have been born as a result of artificial insemination and test tubes, this is the exception, and not the norm. Again, when one thinks pregnancy, the act of sexual intercourse is the rightly assumed natural cause. Most women who become pregnant, and desire to remain pregnant, expect to deliver a living human baby, and most women do.

When does a pregnancy cease to progress?

A woman’s body naturally rejects pregnancies. that are not viable. This is called spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage, and it happens for a variety of reasons, some unknown. A woman who becomes pregnant knows that miscarriage is a possibility, but she does not expect it, because most pregnancies do not end as the result of miscarriage.

A non-spontaneous abortion is when a woman decides to allow a medical professional to forceably remove a developing human baby from the womb, thus ending the life of a human baby.

What does it mean to be “pro” something?

When I say that I am pro-life, it means that I am in full support of, and I advocate for, the full legal protection of pre-born babies because they are human, alive and indeed, persons. Additionally, I oppose choice abortions, and the notion that a woman and man have the right to choose to “terminate” a developing baby for whatever reasons they deem fit.

 When I say that I am pro-war (although, I have never made that statement in this forum), it means that I am for (I support and advocate) the right of a nation to defend itself against an enemy, even if that defense necessitates waging war(s). Additionally, I fully accept the natural and expected outcome of war which is injury and death of persons fighting, and possibly, those not directly engaged in warfare.

In this case, when someone says they are anti-war, they are opposed to the death and carnage associated with war, whether it be soldiers’ deaths or collateral damage.

 The Accusation: Pro-lifers cannot be pro-war because innocent men, women, and children are killed during war, and innocent children die in abortions. Therefore, the pro-lifer who also claims to be pro-war, is a hypocrite. This is the argument.

The Faulty Assumption: Those who sling the above accusation at the pro-lifer, make a faulty assumption that death by abortion is similar to death by war. They are not. In fact, the comparison can be likened to comparing apples and oranges… no, apples and spaceships. They are completely different! If injury and death are the natural and expected consequences of hostile, armed battle, then to be against lives being lost in war is unreasonable, illogical and foolish. It is very different to be against the loss of lives, and to be against the reason for waging the war in the first place. Many are confused in this regard. To be “pro-war” is not unreasonable. Perhaps the more accurate term would be pro-defense.  Perhaps the more appropriate term for anti-war activists would be “pro-peace.”

If the natural and expected consequence or outcome of pregnancy is the birthing of a human, living person, then to be pro-life is both reasonable and logical. To destroy a life, that is the result of actions (sex) that naturally produce life, is unreasonable, illogical, and cruel and unusual punishment. The saddest truth is, no crime has been committed on the part of the innocent baby to justify such punishment.

• A growing human baby in a woman’s womb is functioning according to nature, and is not an enemy. In abortion, why is he/she treated like one?
• Unlike war, a growing human baby has not attacked or threatened the woman carrying that life. In abortion, why is he/she treated as though it had?
• Unlike war, a growing human baby does not plan its arrival as an enemy plans its attack. Two people, a man and a woman, engage in the perfect activity required to result in a pregnancy. In abortion, why is the baby treated as though he/she planned to be conceived? Why is he/she punished?
• Unlike war, a growing human baby is defenseless against the attacker. In abortion, why doesn’t the human baby have a recourse?
• Unlike war, a growing human baby is murdered unreasonably & unexpectedly as a result of elective abortion. In war, death is both reasonable and expected.

 The Conclusion:

In the, “Pro-life is Not Pro-war” argument, the focus is erroneously placed on the fact that a baby murdered in abortion, and lives lost (collateral damage) in war are both innocent. Someone cannot redefine war just because he doesn’t like the fact that lives are lost. War is hostile. People die, and sometimes those people are innocent. Furthermore, collateral damage is the lives and property lost unintentionally; they are unintended targets. What is ”unintentional” about walking into a clinic and aborting a child?

The developing baby is the unarguable target, and the violence she suffers is intended for her alone. Do you know why abortion is murder? It isn’t a word pro-lifers decided to use just to make the atrocity sound as bad as possible. Abortion is murder because unlike other forms of homicide, it is intentional and involves premeditation.

“Pro-choice” individuals by way of the laws of our land, have waged war on human babies, and these tiny persons don’t have a defense. Innocent human babies are the intentional targets of excessive and gruesome acts, and if they could speak, they would probably say, “I didn’t expect this.”

Upon whom has an innocent baby waged war ?

The legalization of abortion is the greatest of all “war crimes” and someone must be held accountable.