Sound Teaching  This is the teaching site of the West Side church of Christ in Fort Worth, TX. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials were written and prepared by Stan Cox |
By Stan Cox, on August 23rd, 2011
In a recent story that appeared in the New York Times titled The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy, Ruth Padawer profiled a 45 year old pregnant woman who had chosen to “reduce” the fetuses in her womb from two to one. Following is a quote from that profile:
She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.
Continue reading » In the News: A New Euphemism for Abortion
By Stan Cox, on April 1st, 2011
I came across a rather peculiar story last Thursday, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The title of the article, a short blurb from the Associated Press, Abortions based on fetus’s race barred.
The article states:
Gov. Jan Brewer has signed what is likely the first legislation in the nation to ban abortions over ethnicity.
The law makes it a Class 3 felony to knowingly perform or provide financing for an abortion sought because of the rae or sex of the fetus or a parent’s race. The maximum punishment is 3 1/2 years in prison.
This is one of the most bizarre stories I have read in a while. Of course, I am certainly in favor of banning abortions, for whatever reason, but for the life of me I can’t imagine the practicality of this law.
Continue reading » In the News: Partial Ban on Abortions – Arizona
By Stan Cox, on April 29th, 2009
Both science and scripture agree, life begins at conception. As such, the legalization of abortion in 1973 stands as one of the most egregious sins against God and man that has been perpetrated by this nation. Christians must speak out against such atrocities.
Sermon PowerPoint: Click Here .
Sermon Audio: Click Here .
By Stan Cox, on January 6th, 2009
 Many are aware of the furor that has erupted over Barack Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Obama promised during his campaign to bring people who differ together so that our nation might come to embrace common ideals despite strong differences. His choice of Warren, who believes what the Bible teaches on the subject of homosexuality and abortion, is an example of Obama keeping this promise.
Interestingly, though this promise among others constitutes one of the reasons he was embraced by the left in this country, it is also the reason why he is being criticised by those same supporters when said promise is put into practice. It seems that homosexuals and abortionists want us to listen to and accept them, but they are unwilling to listen to and accept us! In effect, they are intolerant of those who are intolerant! Put another way, they have long complained of being “marginalized” by society, and now that one of their own is being put into office, they are seeking to do the same to those who disagree with them!
Continue reading » In The News: The Intolerance of the Tolerant
By Stan Cox, on November 30th, 2008
When people arbitrarily redefine terms, it allows for all types of sin. If you can redefine life, you can justify abortion. If you can redefine murder, it allows for assisted suicide. If you can redefine marriage, it allows for homosexual unions. If you can redefine adultery, it allows you to to keep a wife after an unlawful divorce. Men may redefine, but it does not change God’s will!
Sermon PowerPoint: Click Here .
Sermon Audio: Click Here .
By Stan Cox, on October 1st, 2008
 Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of “supporting infanticide,” and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a “four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions.” Obama says they’re “lying.”
At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been “fully in support” of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
FactCheck.org
Analysis:
It seems that in every Presidential election, the issue of abortion is hotly contested, with the unhappy result of polarizing Americans. While it is certainly not appropriate to use the pulpit as a political tool, it is the responsibility of Christians to speak out against sin. Abortion is sinful, and those who are supporting it are supporting the killing of unborn children. According to scripture, the unborn is a child (cf. Psalm 139:13; Luke 1:41).
Continue reading » In The News: Obama and ‘Infanticide
By Stan Cox, on July 6th, 2008
The primary question that one must ask when considering the morality of abortion is, “When does life begin?” It is the question that will determine whether one believes abortion to be merely the removal of tissue, or the murder of a child.
Though many reject it, science supplies only one answer to the question. From the time the sperm fertilizes the egg, a unique organism, with a unique DNA signature, exists. If the DNA were to be examined by an expert to determine its origin, it would not be identified as the DNA of the mother, or the father. It would not be identified as the DNA of some animal. It would be identified as unique human DNA, related as a child to the mother and the father.
Continue reading » A Philosophical Discussion of Abortion
By Stan Cox, on March 14th, 2008
 The question of our title is similar to other questions that have been asked. Can a Christian be a lawyer? Or, can a Christian tend bar?
Those questions speak of the morality of the two occupations. While I believe that a Christian could certainly practice law, there are certain types of lawyers who seem, if they do their job successfully, to violate Christian morality.
However, when I ask the question, “Can a Christian be President?” I am not so concerned with the ethics of the job; rather, I am referring to the electability of a Christian. I am convinced that one who truly holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ would be considered an extremist, and would have no chance of being elected to the highest office in America.
Continue reading » In The News: Can A Christian Be President
By Stan Cox, on October 22nd, 2007
AOTS Number 76
Too many in our permissive society twist the concept of liberty to mean a liscense to do whatever they want. As Christians, we must become slaves to Christ, and be responsible in our actions.
To listen to this Podcast, click here .
To subscribe to the AOTS feed, click here .
By Stan Cox, on June 16th, 2007
 I recently came across a rather bizarre note concerning attempts being made in Austria to have a chimpanzee declared legally “human” for the purpose of legally protecting him from laboratory experiments.
The report states that “Animal rights activists and leading experts in several biological fields including primatology and anthropology are joining forces to uphold a case going before an Austrian court which seeks a declaration of ‘human status’ for a 26-year-old chimpanzee.” The activists want the chimpanzee, named Hiasl, to have a legal guardian appointed over him. Since only humans have the right to a legal guardian, they have to convince the court that Hiasl is, in fact, human.
Continue reading » Is the Chimp Human?
By Stan Cox, on June 10th, 2007
 SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Supermodel Gisele Bundchen stepped into the debate over birth control and sexual behavior in Brazil on Tuesday, saying Church opposition to condom use was ridiculous and women should have the right to choose on abortion.
Gisele is idolized by many young women in Brazil, the world’s largest Roman Catholic country, where debate over sexual issues has intensified around a visit by Pope Benedict last month.
The Pope stressed the Church’s firm opposition to abortion and contraception and railed against sex outside of marriage.
The Brazilian beauty, one of the world’s top models, told Folha de S.Paulo newspaper in an interview that when the Church made its laws centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins.
“Today no one is a virgin when they get married … show me someone who’s a virgin!” she said.
Asked about abortion, she said a woman should have the right to choose what is best for her.
“If she thinks she doesn’t have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?”
Analysis:
There is a great deal interesting about this article. Notice first of all Gisele’s statement that “when the Church made its law centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins.” In fact, it has only been a few decades since women stopped being expected to be virgins. And by the way, it was not the Church that determined that women should be virgins, but rather God, as revealed in His word! “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
Second, note that Gisele is “idolized” by many young women in Brazil. It is interesting how much influence and authority that the world places upon a model — a person whose job is to don the most scandalous of outfits (fashion models exhibit no modesty), and pose for pictures. There is obviously no premium on intelligence, and the lifestyle of a top fashion model is one characterized by debauchery and excess, and yet she is idolized and mimicked by millions of women! Note in contrast the true beauty of the godly woman, “Rather let it [adornment] be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:4).
Third, if a woman doesn’t have the money to have a child, or the emotional condition to raise a child, then why in the world is she engaging in activity that will cause her to conceive a child. In effect, Gisele is saying that a woman (and man) should have the right to act in inappropriate, immoral and immature ways, and not have to pay any consequence for the sin. Rather … kill the innocent, unborn child!
While it is not common today for people to remain sexually pure until marriage, and those who do are considered peculiar, it remains that God intends such faithfulness from His children. Gisele is wrong, and it is a shame she is listened to by so many. She is not wrong because the Catholic church says so, or the pope, she is wrong because the Holy Spirit says so!
By Stan Cox, on May 24th, 2007
 Steve Chabot, a republican congressman from Ohio, drafted a federal law banning partial birth abortions. The measure was passed by congress, and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. The law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional and was defeated in six lower courts before the Supreme Court reversed those decisions, upholding the constitutionality of the law in a 5-4 vote on April 18th.
Moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the ruling. He wrote that even more common abortion techniques have the unfortunate power to “devalue human life”, and indicated that partial birth abortion, (a procedure where the fetus is almost fully removed from the birth canal before scissors are used to pierce the skull and a vacuum is used to destroy the fetus’ brain), “implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.”
Continue reading » In The News: Partial Birth Abortion Banned!
By Stan Cox, on July 20th, 2006
 President George W. Bush may have cited his moral stance in vetoing a bill that would have expanded embryonic stem-cell research on Wednesday but the issue transcends traditional divisions over abortion rights.
Strongly conservative Republicans who oppose abortion such as Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch have backed broader federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for years, and more conservatives have come on board recently, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.
The embryos at issue come from fertility clinics, where eggs and sperm are united in lab dishes. But many more are made than can ever be implanted in mothers’ wombs, and the leftovers are discarded.
The bill vetoed by Bush would have allowed federal taxpayer money to be used to do research on those embryos donated by the parents. It is not illegal to use private funds to do so, although some conservatives, such as Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, would also seek to ban this research.
The stem cells are taken from a ball of cells known as a blastocyst, which develops five to seven days after conception. These embryonic stem cells are pluripotent — meaning they can differentiate into all the types of cells that make up an animal, including a human being, but do not form placenta and cannot become a fetus.
Bush, an opponent of abortion, used his first veto as president to block the bill on Wednesday, saying destroying embryos for medical research “crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.”
Many people who disapprove of abortion say they do not disapprove of experimenting on these embryos, which would otherwise be discarded.
“It’s very difficult to justify abandoning 7,000 to 20,000 in vitro eggs as medical waste,” Hatch told reporters recently.
REUTERS / Peter Macdiarmid
Analysis:
It is not uncommon for advocates of stem cell research to blur the lines regarding what constitutes life. In reality, man has no right to establish such arbitrary distinctions. From conception, an embryo is an independent, living organism. If it is not human, then what is it?
Understood in this light, the immoral nature of the aforementioned arguments becomes clear. For example, stem cell advocates are arguing that since we are going to throw living humans into the trash anyway, instead we ought to kill them through human experimentation.
Stem cell advocates are actually claiming to have the moral high road in this debate. Note the following quote from later in the article, “It is immoral for our families, neighbors and friends to be held hostage to chronic diseases when their treatments are within our scientific grasp,” June Walker, president of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, said in a statement. In reality, the call is for the sacrifice of innocent and vulnerable human beings to benefit others in society. The fact that stem cell advocates are unwilling to admit to the humanness of the embryos does not change the fact of their humanity. To sacrifice one segment of society in preference to another is barbaric, and without any moral justification.
“And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:41).
By Stan Cox, on January 29th, 2006
 President Bush gave Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a broadcast boost Saturday, calling for a simple up-or-down Senate confirmation vote despite a blocking effort by some Democrats.
A final vote on whether to make the conservative federal appellate judge the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice is scheduled for Tuesday unless opponents win an uphill battle to impose a filibuster.
“The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito’s nomination,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “Throughout its 216-year history, the Senate has held an up-or-down vote on every Supreme Court nominee with majority Senate support.”
The president spoke as liberals led by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, D-Mass., worked to deprive supporters of the 60 votes needed to limit debate. They faced resistance from some fellow Democrats as well as solid Republican opposition to the stalling tactic.
Alito, a former federal prosecutor and Reagan administration lawyer, would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She is the court’s first female justice and the swing vote on several 5-4 rulings that maintained abortion rights, preserved affirmative action and limited the application of the death penalty.
Washington AP
USAToday.com
Analysis:
Those who have been following the confirmation hearings for the President’s nomination to the Supreme Court are aware that opponents to Judge Alito’s confirmation are most concerned with his views on abortion.
Pro-abortion advocates are afraid that the Supreme Court’s Roe V Wade decision of 1973, granting women the right to abortion, may be revisited by a more conservative court in the future. They wanted Alito on record saying that the decision is “settled law”, to pressure him to uphold the spirit of the decision as other cases are presented to the court. To his credit, Alito refused to do so, and it looks like his confirmation is imminent.
The departure of the senate from the traditional decorum and bipartisanship of previous confirmations shows just how important this is to pro-abortion advocates. Abortion rights remains a litmus test for many in America, even today.
The Bible clearly reveals that abortion is sinful, as it affirms that a fetus is human life. Here the words of the Psalmist, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:13-14).
By Stan Cox, on January 1st, 2006
 Two-thirds of Americans, including half of conservative Christians, approve of stem cell research that destroys human embryos, according to a recent survey. The poll, sponsored by the Genetics and Public Policy Center, also revealed an American public that is concerned about protecting human embryos but even more supportive of research that results in their destruction.
Only those classified as “fundamentalist/evangelical” failed to achieve at least 55% approval for embryonic research-and 50% of fundamentalists/evangelicals supported ESCR, with 9% strongly approving and 41% approving.
The survey results, released Oct. 13, came as debate continues over the federal government’s role in stem cell research. There are efforts in Congress to liberalize funds for destructive embryonic stem cell research. The House of Representatives approved such a measure earlier this year. The Senate appears to have a majority in favor of that bill but has yet to vote on it…
…So far, embryonic stem cells have produced no treatments for human beings, while non-embryonic stem cells have provided therapies for at least 65 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. These include spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia. Taking stem cells from non-embryonic sources – such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood – does not harm the donor.
Baptist Press, via Pulpit Helps
Analysis:
First, the fact that a majority of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research does not make it right. Men have through the ages differed in their ethics with the Almighty.
Second, the fact that so many Americans are in favor of embryonic stem cell research indicates just how ungodly is the nation in which we live. The interesting note that while Americans agree with the need of protecting embryos, they more strongly agree with ESCR, indicates a disturbing ability to rationalize away killing. In effect, they are saying that human life (in the form of an embryo) is worth sacrificing if the benefits to humanity is sufficient. Not to be too alarmist in our rhetoric, but that is exactly the rationale used by the Nazi’s for their human experimentation during World War II. Further, if we are willing to sacrifice some humans (embryos) for the “greater good”, what will keep us from later including the handicapped, the very young, the sick or the elderly?
Third, the fact that even 50% of “fundamentalist/evangelicals” are in favor of ESCR is an indication of just how pervasive societal influences can be. And, Christians are not immune to such ungodliness either. Remember the troubles in the Corinthian church due to the ungodliness in the community surrounding them? Remember God’s exhortation to, “Come out from among them and be separate… Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
|
|
Comments are closed 