Lead Abortionist Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a TV interview, concerning the oft-debated abortion issue of when life begins, "I don't know that it's really relevant."  She went on to say that her kids' lives began at the time of delivery.

Did you know that Planned Parenthood Kills a Baby Every 94 Seconds?  And do you know how they get a steady stream of customers?

Keep in mind that Taxpayers Provide 46% of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$ and yet Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers



-- From "Planned Parenthood president: Start of life not ‘really relevant’ to abortion discussions" by Douglas Ernst, The Washington Times 2/28/14

“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards said while appearing on Fusion’s “America with Jorge Ramos” on Thursday, Twitchy reported.

Mrs. Richards went on to say that she didn’t think Planned Parenthood should have to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries.”

Mr. Ramos, a journalist, was persistent, asking her “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you believe life starts?”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Life Begins at Delivery, Planned Parenthood President Says" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 2/28/14

Richards at first dodged the question several times . . .

Richards then answered that the question is not part of the conversation about whether abortion should be legal. Every woman needs to make their own decision and Planned Parenthood wants them to have "all their options for health care."

"For me, I'm the mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They've been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that was my own personal decision."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Prez Cecile Richards: When life begins not ‘really relevant’ to abortion" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 2/28/14

Richards' refusal to answer the question echoes Barack Obama's 2008 reply to Rick Warren stating that determining the moment when life begins is “above my pay grade.” However, biologists and embryologists say the fact that life begins at conception is settled science.

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” according to the 1976 Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. The 1993 book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects says fertilization “represents the beginning of a human being.” Numerous other textbooks reveal the same conclusion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cecile Richards: When life begins isn’t relevant to the conversation" by Cassy Fiano, Live Action News 2/28/14

. . . And why would the science of embryology, pregnancy, and reproduction be irrelevant to the conversation? Of course it’s irrelevant for Richards, whose livelihood relies on women believing that life can begin at conception, or at 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, at birth, or whenever you feel like it does.

If science were to definitively say that life begins at conception (which it does), and Richards were to admit that, then she’s admitting that her business is one of snuffing out a life for pay. It makes her a glorified hit man in heels. The problem is that the science of embryology and reproduction has answered that question — life begins at conception — and the question is not over whether or not the baby is alive, but whether killing this life is acceptable.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Life Begins at Fertilization" posted at Princeton.edu

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

To read more scientific references, CLICK HERE.

Some Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich not sure when life begins, but according to one governor, The Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn

Just days after taking office, President Obama Chose Death for the Unborn

In addition, read President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood and also read Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access as well as Bishops Warn Voting for Pro-abortion Democrats is 'Grave Sin'

Christians Bullied: Gov't 'Religion' Teaching Mandated

Canadian government trends foreshadow America's future as Quebec Christians are forbidden to opt their children out of the state religion curriculum that teaches moral relativism, and Alberta Christian schools, and even homeschoolers, are forbidden to teach that homosexual behavior is sinful.

“The long arm of the government wants to reach into family’s homes and control what they teach to their own children in their own homes about religion, sexuality, and morality.”

For background, read Federal Court Rules out Christian Beliefs at University and also read Christian Refused at Pro-gay-only Lunch Counter as well as Pastors Booted from NYC Schools, then Arrested

-- From "Quebec kids can't opt out of religion course: top court" posted at CTV Edmonton 2/17/12

A mandatory ethics and religion course in Quebec schools is constitutional, Canada's top court ruled Friday.

The case came before the court after a Quebec couple from Drummondville argued their children should be exempt from having to take the course, which the government introduced in 2008.

The couple said the course violated their rights by forcing their children to learn religious beliefs they didn't practice.

The government promoted it as a way of fostering harmonious relations among students by introducing them to religious practices and traditions from around the world as well as from Quebec.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Study Rips Into Quebec Relativism Course" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 12/16/11

The new curriculum, mandated by the Quebec Ministry of Education as of September 2008, has sparked a loud outcry from numerous sectors of the province, including secularists, nationalists, and religious believers. Spanning grades 1 to 11, the relativist course aims to promote an "absolute respect" (as one course developer described it) for the spectrum of religions and ethical choices. It replaced a previous religious education program that allowed parents to choose between a Catholic, Protestant, or secular curriculum.

"This is not a course in religious culture. It is a course in multiculturalism," said . . . Joelle Querin, a sociologist and researcher who works with the Institut de recherche sur le Québec (Institute of Research on Quebec). "All conceptions of life are considered valid," she says. "The only thing presented as indisputable is the way to cope with this ethical diversity. There stops the relativism, since children must 'select privileged actions that promote coexistence,' that is to say, acting in accordance with the doctrine of pluralism."

"As parents seek to inculcate certain values to their children of six to eight years of age," she says further, "[the children] learn in school that these values are relative and that they are free to develop their own ethical life."

The curriculum, for example, presents homosexual families as normal. In grade 1 and 2 the course has the goal: "to bring children to explore the diversity of relationships of interdependence between members of different types of families."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class says Alberta gvmt" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 2/23/12

. . . Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence Association said the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.”

“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” a government spokesperson told LifeSiteNews.“A government that seeks that sort of control over our personal lives should be feared and opposed,” he added.

Section 16 of the new legislation restates the current School Act’s requirement that schools “reflect the diverse nature” of Alberta in their curriculum, but it adds that they must also “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality. ‘School’ is defined to include homeschoolers and private schools in addition to publicly funded school boards.

Pro-family observers warned that the ruling risked emboldening other provincial governments in their effort to impose “diversity” programs. The last two years have seen major battles in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and now Alberta over the increasing normalization of homosexuality in the schools.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Stakes Ground in War on Christianity

Chimpanzees are Authors of Morality, says Scientist

Eminent biologist [and] pioneer in the topic of animal empathy, [Frans De Waal who] has spent over 30 years studying primates . . . argues that the building blocks of morality come from our animal ancestors, not religion [or a god].

-- From "Morality: Created By Evolution or Religion?" by Dan Harris, ABC News 12/2/10

De Waal, a pioneer in the topic of animal empathy . . . said that mammals frequently display empathy and reciprocity, crucial components of morality.

"I do think that human morality didn't start from scratch -- human morality started with the primate psychology which has all these tendencies of reciprocity and empathy and following social rules and so on...so we took that psychology and we turned it into a moral system," he said.

It's not just primates who show a moral sense. Dogs console their owners. If a mouse sees another mouse it knows is in pain, it will become more sensitive to pain. Dolphins and beluga whales have been known to help humans in distress.

All of these examples make De Waal pose a provocative question. Is morality inherited from our primate ancestors or did belief systems and religions create a moral code?

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

To read the Frans De Waal essay on this topic, CLICK HERE.

Also read, Scientist: Universe Created Itself, Not God

Government Tells Parents: Don't Teach Morals

Linda Blair, a clinical psychologist, said educating older children and teenagers about sex had to be a process of negotiation. “We do not know what is right and wrong; right and wrong is relative . . .” she said.

-- From "Parents told: avoid morality in sex lessons" by Jack Grimston, The Sunday Times [London] 2/22/09

Parents should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new [U.K.] government leaflet is to advise.

Instead, any discussion of values should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called “amoral”.

Talking to Your Teenager About Sex and Relationships will be distributed in pharmacies from next month as part of an initiative led by Beverley Hughes, the children’s minister.

It advises: “Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own. Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

The leaflet provides technical information on different forms of contraception, from condoms to implants, and will reignite the row over the government’s “value-free” approach to sex education.

Simon Calvert, deputy director of the Christian Institute, attacked the leaflet, saying: “The idea that the government is telling families not to pass on their values is outrageous.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

The Post-modern Motto: Let Religious Pluralism Reign

-- From "Twilight of the Idols" by R.C. Sproul in Tabletalk Magazine, June 2008

. . . In the culture of pluralism, the chief virtue is toleration, which is the notion that all religious views are to be tolerated, all political views are to be tolerated. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is a claim to exclusivity. There is a built-in, inherent antipathy towards all claims of exclusivity. To say that there is one God is repulsive to the pluralists. To say that one God has not revealed Himself by a plurality of avatars in history is also repugnant. A single God with an only begotten Son is a deity who adds insult to injury by claiming an exclusive Son. There cannot be only one Mediator between man and God. There must be many according to pluralists today. It is equally a truism among pluralists that if there is one way to God, there must be many ways to God, and certainly it cannot be accepted that there is only one way. The exclusive claims of Christianity in terms of God, in terms of Christ, in terms of salvation, cannot live in peaceful coexistence with pluralists.

The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. However, since the rise of the ideology of pluralism, the real Unum of that motto has been ripped from its foundation. What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy. Built into our law system is the idea of the equal toleration under the law of all religions. It is a short step in people’s thinking from equal toleration under the law to equal validity. The principle that all religions should be treated equally under the law and have equal rights does not carry with it the necessary inference that therefore all religions are valid. Even a cursory, comparative examination of the world’s religions reveals points of radical contradiction among them, and unless one is prepared to affirm the equal truth of contradictories, one must not be able to embrace this fallacious assumption.

Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn’t matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism. Indeed, it’s a misnomer to call either a system, because it is the idea of a consistent, coherent view of truth that is unacceptable to the pluralist. The fact that people reject exclusive claims to truth does not invalidate those claims. It is the Christian’s duty to hold firm to the uniqueness of God and of His Christ and not compromise with the advocates of pluralism.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.