Pro-abort suspicious over Obama’s Notre Dame “common ground” speech
by Carder
Not all pro-choicers are embracing President Obama’s call for “common ground.” The Rev. Dr. Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, laments in RH Reality Check whether common ground is merely code for appeasement:
My experience of 13 years in the pro-choice movement is that “common ground” has become another term for compromise on reproductive choice. In other words, achieving common ground will be accomplished by diminishing the ability of women to make decisions about abortion, whatever the personal cost. That’s unacceptable.
It’s unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased….
In our democracy, we believe in standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, those without power; we don’t compromise them away. We should not sacrifice women’s lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.
When I, a pro-choice Christian pastor, counsel a woman about abortion, I try to help her search for the decision that is right for her and, if she wishes, others in her life. Her decision is private and individual, a matter of conscience, personal circumstances that she knows best, and medical facts that only she and her doctor know. The last thing on my mind is “common ground.”
Relax, Pastor. If you knew Obama like we know Obama – if you paid attention to his actions, not his words – you’d know common ground is actually the last thing on his mind.
The President has not most certainly not “compromise[d].” He may have duped gullible “Catholics” like Professor Doug Kmiec or Fr. John Jenkins, but the growth you may have noted in our side’s determination has not been due to the President’s attempted conciliatory aura but rather from his abortion extremism.
[Photo attribution: my.barackobama.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“In our democracy, we believe in standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, those without power; we don’t compromise them away.”
Ummmm….what about the disenfranchised, vulnerable, unborn babies?
There is no common ground here. None. You are killing babies. QUIT IT!
Dear Reverend that supports the murder of unborn babies, heed these words spoken by Christ:
“Whatsover you do to the least of my people, you do unto me…..”
It is comments such as this- that women have more value than children- that make me terribly depressed. How are you supposed to reason with people intent on ignorance? How are you supposed to try and speak when you are drowned out by propaganda? How are you supposed to help your fellow human being when you are forced into a brick wall built on bigotry, lies, and the constant need for control over humanity?
I’ll have to think on this one today. It’s giving me a headache for the time being. :(
Why do you call this charlatan a pastor, Carder? This is no pastor–and, I suspect–no Christian. This must be the voice of the same snake that deceived the woman in the Garden of Eden: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not…’ …For God knows that in the day you [do] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:1,5)
The man and the woman listened to the snake. God’s only (but all-sufficient) promise afterwards to both the man and the woman lay in her godly fulfillment of her reproductive potential. He said to the snake, “And I will put enmity [i.e. hatred] between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” (Gen. 3:15)
And, I’ll note, the snake never focussed on common ground. He focussed on the one fruit that God had forbidden. He didn’t care about the man or the woman; he was out to destroy the good world that God had made.
ProChoice Christian pastor? No such thing.
You’ve got that right Carla!
Mt 7.21-23
You can’t be Christian and pro-choice. The good “Reverend” is going to get quite a surprise when he meets his maker one day…
Pastors who support the choice to slaughter children in the womb will have a special place in Hell. I am looking forward to the Kmiec debate. These phony pastors (like all who practice deceit) need to be shown for their deceit sooner rather than later so they can’t keep misguiding women who look to these pastors for guidance and help finding their way. It should be enlightening to those who might otherwise fall under the false teachings of these pro-abort pastors.
“In our democracy, we believe in standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, those without power; we don’t compromise them away. We should not sacrifice women’s lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, yes this statement would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic. YOU VIPER!
“When I, a pro-choice Christian pastor, counsel a woman about abortion, I try to help her search for the decision that is right for her and, if she wishes, others in her life. Her decision is private and individual, a matter of conscience, personal circumstances that she knows best, and medical facts that only she and her doctor know. The last thing on my mind is “common ground.””
Can you spell o-x-y-m-o-r-o-n? What a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Your condemnation is justified.
ProChoice Christian pastor? No such thing.
Posted by: Carla at May 28, 2009 8:39 AM
Totally agree.
Here’s a little background on the “Rev. Dr. Carlton Veazey”:
He’s the (human) president and CEO of the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”. It claims to represent the many faiths–Christianity, Judaism, Mohamedism, Hinduism, Buddhism–but it fails to mention what is probably the only real operative faith of all members. Despite their nominal adherence, they are ardent secular humanists. Eastern religions might fall in line with secular humanism, but Christianity and its distortions are another story.
Dr. Veazey is a minister of the National Baptist Convention U.S.A. It appears to be one of the dying mainline denominations that rebelled against their Lord. It claims to believe some very good stuff, but I suspect that the historical document is as much a deception as the name, both relics of the past to be reinterpreted to fit the new agenda. The National Baptist Convention USA preaches a social gospel and probably hires community organizers.
Contrary to what Dr. Veazey now preaches, ministers in his denomination once believed:
Article X. Sanctification
We believe the Scriptures teach that Sanctification is the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of his holiness; that it is a progressive work; that it is begun in regeneration; and that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the continual use of the appointed means especially the word of God, self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness, and prayer.
Article XI. Perseverance of Saints
We believe the Scriptures teach that such only are real believers as endure to the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Article XII. The Law and Gospel
We believe the Scriptures teach that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, just, and good; and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen man to fulfill its precepts, arise entirely from their love of sin; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the Means of Grace connected with the establishment of the visible church.
Compare the above articles with this muddled piece (first message) of Dr. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention. I find especially ironic his conclusion: “I pray that we will be challenged to look at the moral life through the lens of God’s love. As we do so, we confess that we see through a glass darkly. But we do see!”
Jon,
A question for the pastor according to the Articles of his denomination. According to Article X wasn’t Jesus a person while in the womb of Mary since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, thus Sanctified? I doubt he would answer that question though.
Truthseeker, I should have spoken more tentatively in my comment at 11:25 a.m. I don’t really know much about the National Baptist Convention. Is there any Baptist (from that denomination or another) online here to correct my picture of this group of churches?
Whether secular humanist or not, the “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” is wacky and anti-Christian. These days probably any organization that uses the phrase “reproductive choice” can be dismissed!
“It’s unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased….”
——————————————
How about we turn the tables: It’s unacceptable for even one unborn baby to die in order for opponents of life to be appeased….
Rev. Veazy,
Would you have stood by passively if Mary chose to abort Jesus?
Jesus came to us as an innocent baby. We are each created in His image, so how can aborting a baby EVER be the answer?