Category Archives: Weekend question

Stanek weekend Q: How to respond to assertion abortion isn’t in the Bible?


Rev. Harry Knox, CEO of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, recently posted an op ed at Talking Points Memo, using the Bible to support abortion as an act of compassion.

Ironically, the photo accompanying his piece included me, from a day earlier this year when pro-life activists conducted a prayerful sit-in at Speaker Boehner’s office, which resulted in arrest.

From Knox’s piece:

With the myriad ways that God was invoked on the House floor, one might reasonably assume that the Almighty had sent a gilded memorandum, replete with red letters to the Speaker of the House.

Let’s be very clear: The Bible says nothing about abortion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is offering you their inaccurate interpretation of scripture. But let me tell you what is in the Bible: compassion. Indeed, compassion and love of neighbor are common to many faith traditions.

We read in Zechariah that God proclaims: “Make just and faithful decisions; show kindness and compassion to each other.” Paul writes in Colossians that we ought to, “Put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” And in the Quran, compassion is the most frequently used word.

It’s simple: Our faith traditions call us to acts of justice and compassion. Yet that isn’t what anti-choice legislators are offering….

Women seek abortions for many different reasons. God trusts and empowers us to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. It’s not our place to judge a woman’s personal decisions. God calls us to offer compassion, respect, and support so she can be at peace with whatever decision she makes. We believe this not in spite of our faith, but because of it.

How do you respond to Knox and others like him who say that since abortion isn’t specifically mentioned in the Bible as a sin, it is not only not a sin but a deed to be supported as an act of faith?

Stanek weekend Q: Explain breathtaking liberal blind spot on abortion vs animal cruelty?

These tweets are literally posted one on top the other in pro-abortion Democrat Ted Deutch’s Twitter feed:

Screen Shot 2015-05-16 at 6.41.37 AM

The practice of animal crushing is a sexual fetish of the sickest kind.

About his introduction of the PACT Act, Rep. Deutch wrote:

Too many animals are subjected to unfathomable cruelty and abuse, out of no fault of their own and no recourse for protection. These inhumane acts have no place in our society.

House Foreign AffairsYet, incomprehensibly, particularly by comparison – and on the very same day as he introduced his animal cruelty bill – Deutch, pictured right, blew off the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act as a Republican stunt in his floor speech opposing the 20-wk abortion ban (beginning at 1:08:26 on the video):

Motivation behind H.R. 36 couldn’t be more transparent. They want to make abortion after 20 weeks illegal and abortions before 20 weeks impossible.

Never mind “abortion” equals human slaughter, and never mind it is a well-established fact that babies feel pain by the age of 20 gestational weeks. Babies much younger than this routinely receive anesthesia during prenatal surgery.

This cognitive disconnect is beyond my capability to comprehend. Can anyone help me?

[HT: Chris C.]

Stanek weekend Q: Is feminism losing to multiculturalism?

article-1319804-0B952A16000005DC-450_306x423The hypocrisy of feminists when it comes to the true war on women in Muslim cultures is on flagrant display.

On a daily basis we hear of atrocities committed against women, or shocking prejudices displayed against women, to utter silence on the Left.

Meanwhile, feminists find ghost sexism in every nook and cranny of the West.

I had chalked their hypocrisy up to abhorrence of Judeo-Christian values to the point of absurdly supporting Islamic values.

But an April 30 article by M. G. Oprea at The Federalist entitled, “Feminism is losing its cage fight with multiculturalism,” points to something much more obvious:

No American bands cancelled concert dates after an Imam in southern Francepreached that women are fundamentally selfish. Nor have there been calls to divest ourselves from Saudi Arabia over the recent sentencing of a woman to 70 lashes over “insulting” her husband on WhatsApp.

There is a disturbing resistance on the Left to criticizing Islamic societies for their treatment of women. In fact, it’s barely up for discussion. This stubborn denial of women’s rights in Islamic societies reveals a cognitive dissonance on the left, where two of their most closely held beliefs come into conflict: feminism and multiculturalism.

The multicultural project, which came out of our universities in the 1950s and ’60s, seeks a world where there is no right or wrong, only different. Believing that all religions and cultures are absolutely equal means reserving judgment. No society is better or worse than the next. Out of fear of seeming critical of other cultures, or worse, seeming to echo the rhetoric of colonialism, the Left falls over itself to avoid even a trace of criticism….

The dedication to the multicultural project clashes most regrettably with feminism. The Left, which everywhere sees gender inequality and a war on women in the West, has a blind spot when it comes to Islam. Whether it’s about pay inequality, nursing in public, or the latest FX series, “Fargo,” there is always somewhere an outcry of sexism in America. Gender inequality, while certainly still existent in America, has become an obsession.

Take the Hobby Lobby decision last year, which exempts some businesses from having to provide certain kinds of contraceptives. It provoked accusations that the ruling was going to send us back to the biblical times of stoning and genital mutilation. But what about Islamic societies, where stoning and genital mutilation still occasionally happens today?…

Two strongly held progressive ideals, multiculturalism and feminism, are in conflict when the topic of women’s rights in Islamic societies comes up. The Left cannot reconcile its need to accept all cultures as equal with its “fierce” defense of gender equality. They have to choose one over the other. Sadly, they have chosen the appearance of pious multiculturalism over the rights, health, and freedom of many Muslim women.

Multiculturalism, it seems, trumps women’s rights.


The hypocrisy is also playing out politically.

The Left’s goddess shrine, Hillary Clinton, has recently come under fire for revelations that the Clinton Foundation took money from Muslim countries that grossly mistreat women.

In answer to my own question, I think it’s obvious feminism has ceded to multiculturalism.

So, do you see this hypocrisy as a growing problem for the the feminist brand?

How would liberalism be impacted were feminists to decide to take on Islam’s treatment of women?

Do you think feminist/Clinton hypocrisy on the true “war on women” will hurt her chances of becoming president?

[HT: Susie]

Stanek weekend Q: Do you agree “abortion-centered feminism is dying”?


Quoting from US News & World Report, April 17:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the opening days of her presidential candidacy and in the veiled statements that preceded it, suggested her platform would focus at least in part on the economic issues that affect women – equal pay, paid family leave, minimum wage – which anti-abortion activists take to be a sign that they’ve already begun to gain the upper hand.

“Abortion-centered feminism is dying, if not dead,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser on Thursday, arguing that the 2014 election cycle proved that Democrats could not win by attacking Republicans for being anti-abortion.

Do you agree “abortion-centered feminism is dying, if not dead”?

Stanek wkend Q: What questions should media ask Democrats on abortion?

ddpb22320wee_002This week Senator Rand Paul turned a question by an AP reporter attempting to brand him as a pro-life extremist back on him by asking:

Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?

You go back and go ask (Democrat National Committee head) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.

Indeed, this is but one of a thousand questions reporters could and should ask pro-abortion politicians about the radical extent of their abortion support.

For instance, how can they support the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure to the sickening point Michelle Obama used it as a fundraising tool?

And why does the media let abortion zealots get away with claiming fetal pain at 20 weeks is “disputed”, when surgeons routinely provide pain relief to preborn babies during prenatal surgery beginning at 18 weeks? At any rate, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?

The list goes on and on.

What questions would you like to see reporters ask pro-abortion politicians?

[Photo of preborn baby at 20 weeks via]

Stanek weekend Q: What should a “pro-choice display” include?


University of Texas-Arlington pro-abortion students have tried shutting down the Pro-Life Mavericks’ cross display with both petitions and vandalism, but to no avail.

They’ve now decided if they can’t beat ’em, they’ll join ’em. From The Shorthorn, March 21:

The Society for Social Justice for Women and Families will join in on the conversation about pro-choice versus pro-life on Monday, society President Prashant Hariharan said.

“We wanted to voice the pro-choice view through statistics,” Hariharan said….

Jenny Nguyen, president of Students for a Democratic Society, said she stood out in the rain with some members Friday to protest the display with a petition to ask the Pro-Life Mavericks to seize any future antiabortion displays.

“It’s not that we’re against people saying what’s on their mind, it’s just we think there’s a better way to for them to do so,” English junior Cody Needham said….

The [pro-abortion] display will include posters with infographics and links to online resources that students can easily view as they pass by.

I always love how crosses drive abortion supporters to madness. The irony is too rich.

550a4f6c99541.imageThe pro-choice students will be using “statistics” and “infographics” to gather support. Anything to take the attention off the baby.

But an honest abortion supporter would hold a photo of a victim of abortion with the caption, “Choose This!”

What else would honest abortion supporters include in their displays?

[Top photo via Pro-Life Mavericks; bottom photo via]


Stanek weekend Q: Pro-lifers, do you care if you’re liked?

In a March 13 article, Canadian pro-life activist Jonathon van Maren quoted Center for Bio-Ethical Reform leader Gregg Cunningham’s observation, that “liked reformers are rarely effective and effective reformers are rarely liked.

I often think of this, for obvious reasons, sometimes referring back in my mind to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which lists the desire to be liked on a lower “self-actualization” plane than the desire to be respected. In my own life I translate this to mean the desire for respect is a greater human value than the desire to be liked.


The issue for pro-lifers is complicated, because we are also dealing with an opponent who engages in ridicule as a tactic, taken from the Alinsky playbook’s Rule #5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

So, the inherent aversion of the abortion issue by torn people who innately know it’s wrong but don’t want to stop it for whatever reason (Pontius Pilate) is exacerbated by those trying to stir up negative feelings (the mob) against those bearing the pro-life message.

Yet, the issue of public relations is something to be considered.

Is it possible or desirous – as far as it is within our power to do so – to seek personal affirmation when spreading the pro-life message?

UPDATE 3/16, 6:45p: Jonathan van Maren has written an excellent follow-up piece.

Stanek weekend Q: What if it had been pro-life activists who mailed that “glitter bomb”?


From, March 5:

Lincoln police are investigating who sent a so-called glitter bomb letter to Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s Lincoln office Wednesday.

The glitter was in a standard envelope sent to the office at 301 S. 13th St. and was “unleashed” when the envelope was opened about noon, Lincoln Police Sgt. Brian Agnew said.

The note, sent by the group Glitter Bombs for Choice, criticized Fortenberry’s stance on abortion and abortion rights.

“You’ve earned this for trying to deny women their right to choice,” the letter read. “Mind your own uterus.”

Fortenberry, a Republican who represents Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District, received the Nebraska Right to Life’s endorsement in 2014 and recently supported a House of Representatives effort to prohibit federal funding for abortions.

The letter had a fake name and was not sent from the return address on the envelope.

There were those headlines that credited “pro-choice activists” with the glitter bomb, but just as many omitted the ideology of the culprits, as indicated in the graphic above.

But imagine if it had been pro-life activists who glitter bombed a pro-abortion legislator.

How do you think that story would have played out in the media?