Why are we here?

There is an interesting blog post at: http://liveactionnews.org/if-heaven-is-for-real-do-unborn-babies-go-there/

One of the comments caught my attention.

“The reason i am active in the pro-life movement, as active as I am, is that I DON’T believe in heaven. IF I felt that the aborted just go directly to paradise, I would still be against abortion, but I wouldn’t actually be trying to stop it. I would figure that there were worse evils to fight than something that just sends babies to heaven. When you believe in heaven, no matter how you cut it, abortion is not that bad.

But as an atheist, I know that there is no Heaven, no afterlife. The babies are just gone. Just gone. No second chances. Their lives are over, they have lost the only life they will ever have. That horrible tragedy is why I am active in the pro-life movement” – Sarah Terzo

This belief does make a difference. The worst part is that it makes it reasonable to kill anyone of any age if you believe they are destined for a happy paradise after death. Sarah has pointed out the reason that I became as upset about abortion as I am. This is a big difference between those who believe in an afterlife and those like me and Sarah who don’t. What do you think? Does killing someone to make them happier make sense to you?

It makes sense, but only if one is convinced beyond ALL doubt that an afterlife exists and that it is completely happy. I am convinced that the concept doesn’t make any sense. If there was a god who could make a place full of bliss with no pain: Why are we here?

3 questions from a youtube commenter

Someone with the username: john Eddy commented on my video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwK4Vkve1o

After some comments back and forth, he asked me three questions. I have a general idea of how I want to answer them, but I am sure that my pro-life friends from many different backgrounds have much more knowledge and experience with laws than I do. Therefore I would like some input.

Here are quotes from this user and my responses.

“Are you willing force woman to have children? If your answer is anything other than “Yes”, then there is no debate.”

No, that’s one reason why I am a virgin.

“Fair enough, but I didn’t mean you. With that in mind, same question.

“Are you willing force woman to have children? If your answer is anything other than “Yes”, then there is no debate.””

Maybe I don’t really understand what is behind your question. Men who rape women and get them pregnant are forcing them to have children, but I am not.

“Let’s forget about some of the details for a second, I just want to talk about the core of the issue. Let’s remove ourselves from the argument so that we can focus on the interests of others for now/ everyone else. So…

“Are you willing to force someone (women) to have kids?”

Although it’s an extreme example, let’s use what you said about rape. If a woman was raped then would you force her to have the child?”

She already has a child if she is pregnant. So I suppose you are asking if I would force her to let it live rather than kill it. Am I correct?

“Sure, let’s go with that. So is that a Yes or a No?”


“and would you make it legislation/ law?”

If that is what is required to end abortion, then yes. Still, my activism in no way will stop even if it becomes illegal. But I am not a politician anyhow nor would I become one. But I will vote for those who will outlaw it.

“Assuming that an Anti-abortion bill had passed, I’d like to ask a few hypothetical questions…

1. Who will enforce this legislature, and how?
2. Who will raise and sponsor unwanted children?
3. Will there be contraceptive methods/ programs available? What are they and who will pay for them?”

Do Your Taxes Fund Abortions?

“Do your federal taxes fund abortions? Of course they do.

It’s true that the Hyde Amendment prohibits the Federal State from DIRECTLY paying for specific abortions, but that’s an arbitrary line, established because someone declared it exists. We maintain that your federal taxes really do pay for abortions because the supposed line between direct and indirect funding doesn’t really exist.

There is one word that explains the truth about abortion funding, and four other words that explain our position on this issue. Consider each of these words, and then draw your own conclusions. Let’s start with the most important word first . . .


Money is fungible. A dollar used for one thing is exactly the same as a dollar used for another thing. The individual dollars are perfectly interchangeable. So . . .

What if federal politicians gave your tax money to a church, but with the limitation that the money could only be used for the soup kitchen, not for preaching?

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would surely challenge this, arguing that it represents a partial “establishment of religion,” because tax funding for the soup kitchen would free-up other church resources that could then be used for proselytizing. In other words, tax money would be used to subsidize views that some may oppose.

In precisely the same way, if groups like Planned Parenthood get money to use for one part of their operations, they free up funds from other sources to be used for abortions. It really is that simple.

So you see, the Hyde Amendment really doesn’t stop tax funding of abortions. Your tax money is still subsidizing abortions, whether you like it or not. Which brings us to our next important word . . .


Those who advocate a right to abortion claim to be “pro-choice.”

But don’t those who oppose abortion have a right to NOT be forced to fund it?

We assert that they do. To truly be pro-choice, abortion providers must embrace voluntary funding as their sole means of support.


The Tenth Amendment makes clear that the powers of the Federal State are so limited that we can actually count them.

Can you find, in the Constitution, the power that authorizes Congress to fund abortion providers, or even “family planning?” We can’t.

It doesn’t exist.


The decision, by Republicans, to divert the issue of spending cuts in the 2011 budget back to old, partisan hangups from the bygone culture war days, deserves criticism. It’s an attempt to . . .

* divert us from the enormity of the budgetary crisis.
* divide us — to scare people into supporting Republicans as the lesser of two evils, even if they don’t keep their Pledge to cut spending.

I signed a Downsizer-Dispatch, on April 13, 2001, that attacked this kind of manipulation.

Instead, we should all be CONSISTENT defenders of the Constitution, and more importantly, of the PRINCIPLES that underly it. For this reason we here at Downsize DC are CONSISTENTLY ANTI-PARTISAN. We are disinterested in partisan cheer-leading or supporting “the lesser of two evils.” That’s why we have CONSISTENTLY called for cuts to fan favorites of both the Left and the Right.

In the past, the Downsize DC team has earned the ire of conservatives who support war as a means of re-engineering the world, and who favor drug prohibition and other unconstitutional invasions of civil liberties. We also oppose the Left on such hypocrisies as denying choice to those who oppose abortion.

At Downsize DC we stand against expanding the power of the State and advocate serious cuts on EVERYTHING in the present budget. We urge you to join us in a consistent call to do the right thing. This is far more virtuous than cheering for the right team. We sincerely doubt that there is such a “right team,” but we can be sure that there are right principles.

Copyright (c) 2011 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.”


Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men

This is a post that I submitted to Kelsey Hazzard at Secular Pro-Life


I encourage everyone to go to the link and comment there. Also Kelsey put a funny picture of a pregnant looking man. However, for convenience of those who subscribe to my wordpress blog, I have also copied the text here.

Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men

Consider this situation: A man chooses to have sex with a woman who he knows will go for an abortion if she gets pregnant. She does get pregnant. She goes to an abortionist, who performs the abortion. Which of the three people killed the baby? The father, mother, or abortionist?

It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct. The father chose to do the one thing that could result in a pregnancy the mother did not want. The mother chose to abort rather than seeking out alternatives. The abortionist was the final step in causing the death of the baby.

Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

Again, there’s no one right answer, but I would pick the father. Talking to the abortionist could have a major impact if he’s the only abortionist in town and has no one to replace him, but otherwise, the mother will just go elsewhere for the abortion. Of course talking to the mother is good because if her mind changes, the child will live. But will she have the support of the father? He had expected the mother to have an abortion even before they had sex, which implies that he has no interest in taking care of the child.

Talking to the father makes sense because he has the power to change his ways and stop creating children who will be killed. He also has the ability to support the mother in taking care of the children he is responsible for, making the mother less likely to want to abort. Many women abort due to fear of being a single mother.

Outreach to women in crisis pregnancy situations is great, but we need to make sure we’re reaching the men too, rather than placing all of the weight on the women. The idea that men are irrelevant to the abortion debate is incredibly misguided.

What pro-choice arguments sound like.

“Yes I’m pro-choice. That’s why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it’s his body and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He’s free to choose and it’s none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.”  – Randy Alcorn

The above quote is a perfect example of how pro-choice arguments sound to pro-life advocates. They question is not whether we have a right to choose, but WHAT we have a right to choose!

Why hormonal birth control pills are irrelevant

I used to think that birth control pills were good because fewer pregnancies equals fewer abortions. On the surface this makes sense, but there are some problems with it.

First, women should not be pumping themselves with hormones that may damage their health so that men can use them as a sex machine. I feel sorry for women who believe that their body is bad and needs to be corrected with strange drugs so that men who don’t want children don’t have to take responsibility.

My second issue with it is that using hormones is not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy anyway. People have tried to fool the human body with hormones, but I am convinced that it doesn’t work.

The third problem I have with pills like is that they are a waste of money. Companies who sell these things are literally making money off of other people’s sex lives. You may not be bothered by this, but I think that the money could be put to a better use to actually help people.

I will not debate about other forms of contraception because I have no reason to suspect that they are a damage to health like hormones in pills might. They may still be a waste of money, but I know that not everyone can be the same kind of asexual autistic animal that I am.

obamacare abortion pill mandate defeated

The Hobby Lobby case was the catalyst that caused me to become actively pro-life. Clearly this is not over, but I think it is a good sign that things can change. I don’t think that this should be framed as a matter of religious freedom because life is far more relevant than religion, but I am glad that Christian organizations won’t be forced to pay for pills that have potential to kill zygotes by preventing implantation.


“Moments ago, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The result?


Victory for religious liberty. Victory for life. Victory for common sense.

First, the Supreme Court held that, yes, closely-held corporations can assert religious liberty rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here’s Justice Alito, writing for the majority:

As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.

Next, the Court stated that it has “little trouble” concluding that the abortion-pill mandate “substantially burdened” Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion. This meant that the Obama Administration could only prevail if it could show that its mandate was the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling government interest.”

The Obama Administration could not meet that heavy burden.

So it lost. Decisively.

What does this mean? It means that the Obama Administration cannot trample the rights of business owners at will, treating them merely as extensions of the federal government. Business owners enjoy fundamental liberties, and that common sense conclusion will have wide-ranging ramifications for liberty.

The decision is also a clear defeat for the abortion lobby and its radical White House allies. Hobby Lobby and – by extension – all of our ACLJ clients cannot be drafted into directly subsidizing abortion on demand.

We filed a key amicus brief in this case where we asserted the very arguments the Court adopted today. In addition, we have two cases before the Supreme Court on this same issue, have filed seven challenges to the abortion-pill Mandate (prevailing in all of them) and have filed more than a dozen amicus briefs nationwide. In other words, we launched a years-long effort to defeat the Mandate and are grateful for this outstanding result.

The Obama Administration has suffered a stinging defeat. And that means liberty won.

And – most important of all – lives will be saved.”

Why Jainism is relevant

Jainism is an old religion with a focus on non-violence. Since non-violence is something I already agree with, it seems logical that I look into it. I would imagine that it would be safer to be around a group of Jainists than those of another religion which promotes war and animal sacrifice.

Ahimsa is the ethic of non-violence. Those who think that all life is valuable, sacred, holy, or relevant are not likely to kill something when it can be avoided. Jains are vegetarian. They often also don’t eat root vegetables such as potatoes or carrots. I don’t think that I would go quite that far.

Satya is the ethic of speaking the truth unless doing so could result in violence. In that case it is better to be silent.

Asteya is the ethic of not stealing. It is bad to take anything which is not willingly offered.

I already agreed with the idea of not killing, hurting, lying, or stealing. That is the general thing I look at when studying a philosophy, religion, or any individual.

While reading about Jainism, there was something else that interested me. Jainists also believe that the universe has always existed and did not need to be created. I think this makes a lot more sense than other ideas I have heard.

Why the spider is relevant

In my life I have killed many spiders. In the past, the usual thing I did without thinking was to find a kleenex box and smash the spider. But this time was different.

After explaining my pro-life philosophy to people, I could not justify simply killing an innocent spider just for being on the kitchen floor. I can’t call it self-defense since the spider was not attacking me.

I also could not leave it there and go about my usual business. It could quite possibly bite me or my mother while we are asleep. I had to get it out of the apartment, but I did not want to kill it.

What I did was take a paper towel, grab the spider, and quickly run to the door and throw the paper towel outside. In the morning, my mother was wondering why there was a paper towel outside. I explained why I can’t be pro-life and then kill a spider.

The average person may not see a problem with killing spiders, but when I put myself in the spider’s place, I think that I would not want someone to smash me with a giant kleenex box. I suppose being wrapped in a giant paper towel would also be a scary experience, but it was the less violent of the options. I learned to be relevant to the spider and consider what it might prefer.

When I inspected the paper towel in the morning, I did not see the spider. Surely it walked somewhere else. I will remember this event as the time when I solved a problem in a non-violent way.

Solomon’s Older Brother

Did you know that king Solomon had an older brother by the same mother? No one knows his name. That is because it is not mentioned in the bible.

This child was the first son of king David and Uriah’s wife Bathsheba. David did sex with Bathsheba while Uriah was at war. Not to long after he found out that Bathsheba was pregnant, he arranged a way for Uriah to die in war and make it look like an accident. Then he married Bathsheba. She gave birth to a son who’s name is unknown. The full story is in Chapter 11 in the book of 2 Samuel.

Chapter 12 is extremely relevant because it tells the story of how God killed the child.

“2 Samuel 12:1 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. 2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up:and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. 5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly:but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth:but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. 18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead:for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice:how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? 19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead:therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. 20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped:then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. 21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. 22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept:for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. 24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her:and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon:and the Lord loved him.”

The lesson of this story is, children must die for the sins of their father. Naturally, I disagree because I don’t believe that innocent life should be killed.