PASTOR SAYS: Don’t Be Surprised About Planned Parenthood – Or Anything Else – For This Reason

Published on August 5, 2015

by Greg Young
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

Why are we surprised?

This past week we saw video of the lead Doctor for Planned Parenthood, Deborah Nucatola, share the disturbing story about the sale of body parts and how a procedure very similar to partial birth abortion is used to “preserve” needed parts. Funny, isn’t it, that these same proponents of “women’s choice” called this a fetus, or a clump of tissue. So if it is a clump of tissue, then how does it have viable body parts that are marketable?

There is an interesting article that lays out the claim of the abortionists. It consistently refers to “anti-choicers” and deconstructs the argument of the viability of a fetus as a life, while being careful to preface the argument with an opening that says, “At the outset, let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue.” That is the issue we have been so grossly negligent to understand in this entire debate and incredulousness about the response of the left. They look at us like we are the stupidest people on earth, and from their perspective we are.

Now, before I lose the “base,” think about this for a minute. In their world, life begins when they say it begins and ends when they say it ends. Hillary Clinton says that the baby is not a baby until it leaves the hospital. Is there really any media outrage? Anyone on the left having an issue with that? A live baby, out of the womb is still not a valid life until it is removed from the hospital.

Let’s go back a little further. Now I want to preface this by saying that this is an issue of morality and an issue of moral authority. It is why the attack on biblical beliefs and Christianity is a key element.

Okay, so lets go back to Jack Kevorkian and assisted suicide. At the time, Jack was running around in secret and helping people die, it was considered an horrific act and even murder. But there was an argument to be made for the quality of life and what the humane thing to do was, so they told us. You remember Doctor Kermit Gosnell? He was providing a service, he said. These children’s lives would have lacked quality, decency and opportunity.

Are children born in certain economic conditions worth less than children born in wealth? Is not the life of a poor child worth the same as that of a child born in wealth? Is not the life of the child given by the same God? Do they not have the same attributes, created in His image? But, if we discount God from the equation and introduce the idea of privilege above the value of life, then we draw a line straight back to Margaret Sanger and the idea that certain members of society had to be exterminated.

So, do you see why there should really be no surprise? They told us from the beginning what they intended to do. They have devalued life by tearing at the moral fiber that gives that life intrinsic value. The kind of value our founding fathers said made every man equal and endowed us with certain inalienable rights.

As an aside, it should be noted that before Roe v. Wade, men had a financial interest in making sure they did not violate a women’s right to choose sex. They had to consider the possibility of a child as the outcome and that they would be held responsible by the court for the well being of both the child and the mother for 18 years. Were there abortions in those days? Yes, there were, and certainly many horror stories, but more often than not the mere realization of the long term responsibility gave women a power over men that they have now lost. Now, a man knows that abortion is a viable option and can take advantage of the woman knowing that any “inconvenience” can be swept away; it reduces the protection of the woman.

But there are even deeper ramifications for these issues. If there are no moral boundaries on when life begins or when life ends, except those told to us by these in the elitist class, then what about other areas where morality should play a role? What are the ramifications of a change in the definition of marriage for example? If there are no moral absolutes then there are no limits to what may be deemed appropriate or inappropriate. Take the recent scuttle over drag queens being forbidden to participate in a Pride parade. Again, should we be surprised? I say no.

It is now an all in affair; remember that the ‘Over Hauling of Straight America’ unapologetically referred to NAMBLA as the furthest edge of acceptability. That is, Pedophilia has always been a part of the “homosexual” agenda. Now we have Caitlyn, given a courage award for challenging sexual identification and gender reclassification. Because of Caitlyn, drag queens are out and transponders are in. Middle schools are holding conferences to indoctrinate kids on how same sex acts work and to encourage them to try it out. There are no boundaries on what a marriage might look like.

How far has this taken us? Think about this, your spouse could show up tonight with a bevy of women or men and say they are adding them into the relationship and you have no firm legal grounds to do anything but leave the house. Polyamory, polygamy, pedophilia and even bestiality are all off the taboo list and on the table as potential “family structures”.

So if sexual morality has been redefined, when life begins or ends is a matter decided by those in power, then illegal immigration, lying, cheating, stealing and murder have all just been given the green light. All done in the name of expanded understanding and enlightenment. Without any morality no one will be safe and your life will only extend to the extent that the elite deem it to have value to them. Sound extreme? Would you have imagined ten years ago that your kids would be being taught ‘fisting’ in their Sex Ed classes today? Five years ago would you have imagined that same sex marriage would be the law of the land?

One last thought, for those celebrating the court ruling that will repeal the NDO in Houston, Texas or bring it to a vote in November. Remember this, when that ordinance was passed it actually violated the Texas constitution. Today with the Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell, those ordinances are unnecessary. The Texas constitution on marriage is mute. The Texas Employee Retirement Services started accepting applications for same sex partners on July 1st as did the State Employee Benefit System and the University of Texas system. Texas State Government has embraced the homosexual agenda even if the Governor and Lt Governor would have you believe otherwise. But, should we really be surprised?

Originally Published on