A Pretender Tells the Truth on Pop-Music Prostitutes

What a sad indictment on our culture that a twice-divorced Vaishnava, PETA loving vegetarian rock-and-roller who once tried to convince the drug-addicted lead singer of the Sex Pistols to marry her, is now a voice of reason when it comes to the hyper-sexed nature of modern pop music.

Chrissie Hynde, the 64-year-old former lead singer of The Pretenders, recently implied that the “bumping and grinding,” underwear-wearing musicians Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Beyoncé, Katy Perry and the like, are nothing more than prostitutes. In accusing such singers of doing “a great deal of damage to women” with their risqué performances, the exact label used by Hynde was “sex worker.”

Hynde went so far as to accuse the gyrating hussies of putting women in danger. Hynde declared, “I don’t think sexual assault is a gender issue as such, I think it’s very much it’s all around us now. It’s provoked by this pornography culture, it’s provoked by pop stars who call themselves feminists. Maybe they’re feminists on behalf of prostitutes – but they are no feminists on behalf of music, if they are selling their music by bumping and grinding and wearing their underwear in videos. That’s a kind of feminism – but, you know, you’re a sex worker is what you are.”

Hynde is exactly right. And as I noted over a year ago, tragically, the “sex worker” and “pornography culture” she describes extends far beyond the realm of today’s pop music. For decades now, our media has been saturated with such smut. In our household, we’ve long referred to these Hollywood sluts as “high-priced harlots.” Whether in TV, motion pictures, music videos, swimsuit magazines, lingerie ads, burger ads, and so on, what else are we supposed to call women who do little more than make money by displaying their flesh?

For nearly three generations now, despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents, we have had boys grow into men who have seen thousands of images of scantily clad, seductive-acting women. It is little wonder then, that, instead of marriage and family, many young men now seek only “friends with benefits.”

As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered.

As my lovely wife noted last year, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.”

It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end—which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is, to a great extent, the sad result of growing up without a father, or at least a father who will teach and model for them how they are supposed to treat women.

And instead of teaching and promoting eternal truths on sex, marriage, and the family, whether with abortion, the homosexual agenda, the transgender agenda, pornography, and the like, modern feminists have embraced nearly every sexually deviant perversion known in our culture. As the Apostle Paul put it, they are “God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.”

Chrissie Hynde recently penned Reckless: My Life as A Pretender. “I regret half of this story,” she declares. Hynde has been very candid about her sorrow for past drug and alcohol abuse, her broken relationship with her parents, and her sexual promiscuity. Modern feminists and their apologists are paying little attention.

In reviewing Reckless, the Boston Globe’s Mike Shanahan said that “controversial comments about rape and provocative attire” by Hyndes “suggests she may have a ways to go” when it comes to feminism. How duped by feminist lies does one have to be to stand up for the likes of a twerking demon-in-heat-like Miley Cyrus?

Make no mistake about it, unless they repent from their hedonistic lifestyle sooner rather than later, and if they manage to live long enough, many of today’s feminists will be sounding like Chrissie Hynde.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Rolling Stone, et al. Bemoan the Culture They Helped Create

Why is anyone surprised that Rolling Stone would flub a rape story? Since when did a magazine so devoted to a liberal worldview, and that borders on—and, by my standards, crosses over into—pornography, become a trusted source for matters involving women and sexual assault?

For over four decades, Rolling Stone has spilled thousands of gallons of ink glorifying the hedonistic, misogynistic culture of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. Its covers have been adorned with nude men and women—sometimes together. Pornography is a regular topic, and it’s almost always put in a positive light.

In April of this year, Rolling Stone did a near 4,000-word exposé on the infamous Miriam Weeks—aka Belle Knox—the Duke freshman who decided to pay for college with a career in the porn industry. Describing America’s reaction to the news of a barely-out-of-high-school 18 year-old—without the knowledge and consent of her parents—becoming a porn sensation, the author declares, “On the one hand, said some, why shouldn't a consenting adult engage in a perfectly legal profession in order to better herself through higher learning? And what right does society have to tell women what to do or not do with their bodies, anyway? But, on the other hand, you know, WTF?” As if those of us who stand aghast at Miss Weeks’ decision can only manage “WTF?”

I won’t link to the piece. It’s full of vulgarities and perversions, and it paints as rosy a picture as possible for a still teenage girl who has prostituted herself to the point that her first scene as a porn star was described as:

“I remember getting naked, and the guy said, ‘You have cuts on your legs. You're a cutter.’ He could tell I had written the word ‘fat’ in my thigh, so he started calling me fat.” Once they called “action,” she was pushed to the ground and slapped. “And I said, ‘Stop, stop, stop. No, no.’ And then they stopped, and they were like, ‘We have to keep going.’” 

“And I was like, ‘Just please don't hit me so hard.’ But it went on like that, me getting hit, pushed, spit on. I was being told I was fat, that I was a terrible feminist, was going to fail all my classes, was stupid, dumb, a slut. But I got through it. You know how you kind of zone out sometimes? I just disassociated.’”

She just “disassociated.” One of the great lies of the porn industry, whether a participant or a consumer, is that one can simply “disassociate” such activity from the rest of one’s life. In other words, as any good liberal knows, porn consumption or participation is just like the consumption or participation in an abortion—it’s no big deal.

Rolling Stone was so impressed with Miss Weeks that, just two weeks prior to running the disastrous “A Rape on Campus” piece, they published her defense of prostitution in their opinion section. That’s right, a publication that wants us to take them seriously when it comes to a matter as grave as rape, devoted a part of their opinion pages to a 19-year-old who, in addition to now devoting her life to porn, has also added “prostitution apologist” to her résumé. Miss Weeks informs us that prostitutes are only trying to make an “honest living,” and we should avoid the notions of “abused hookers and human traffickers” that are so often associated with prostitution.

Unsurprisingly, Miss Weeks could hardly be more wrong. As I noted back in April, prostitutes are a tragic example of what often results when women use their bodies as a means to an end. Prostitutes are more likely than any other group of women ever studied to be, among many other terrible things, victims of rape and homicide.

In 2008, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times points out that, “The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering.” According to a study by The American Journal of Epidemiology, the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women—working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34. The Journal concluded, “Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.”

Why are men more violent toward prostitutes? Because in prostitution, a woman’s humanity is removed. She becomes little more than a commodity to be consumed. Thus, a very unhealthy attitude toward women in general is fostered. Studies have shown that men who regularly use prostitutes are more likely to be sexually aggressive with women who are not prostitutes.

Of course, in pornography, women (and men) are also commodities to be consumed. Gail Dines, a highly regarded academic, author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, and considered “the world's leading anti-pornography campaigner,” concludes that “the earlier men use porn, the more likely they are to have trouble developing close, intimate relationships with real women.”

Dines adds that, “Some of these men prefer porn to sex with an actual human being. They are bewildered, even angry, when real women don't want or enjoy porn sex.” Of course, such anger often results in violence. Dines also notes that “porn sex” is becoming increasingly violent (as Miss Weeks’ experience demonstrates).

“We are now bringing up a generation of boys on cruel, violent porn,” Dines says, “and given what we know about how images affect people, this is going to have a profound influence on their sexuality, behavior and attitudes towards women.” In Dines’ research, she has found that the prevalence of porn means that men are becoming desensitized to it. Thus, men are getting caught in the vicious cycle of looking for images that are ever more harsh, violent, and degrading toward women.

Ms. Dines goes on to describe images that are too horrible to mention here. “To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound,” she concludes. Additionally, Dines points out that, “Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear.”

Yet women like Miss Weeks ignorantly and defiantly conclude that it’s the “conservative Bible Belt culture of the South” that makes a “highly misogynistic and oppressive atmosphere for women.”

In early 2013, the insufferable Lena Dunham, doing her best Miley Cyrus imitation on the cover, also had a spread in Rolling Stone. Dunham, who, when she’s not writing (and performing in) TV shows and books that promote and glorify abortion, casual sex, drug use, and everything else that makes a liberal’s life complete, also takes topless selfies in support of the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood.

Demonstrating that, for liberals, not all rapes and rapists are created equal, it seems that Planned Parenthood is also in the business of protecting pedophiles. A recent investigation reveals that girls as young as 10 were taken by their abusers to Planned Parenthood facilities for abortions and birth control. Because Planned Parenthood staff failed to report the crimes, the sexual abuse continued for years. Some girls were brought repeatedly for abortions, yet no questions were asked.

Earlier this year, the pro-life group Live Action caught Planned Parenthood giving dangerous and violent sexual advice to girls as young as 15. According to American Thinker’s Drew Belsky (Live Action’s communications director at the time), “As viewers can see in our preview, Planned Parenthood has an institutional policy of endorsing and recommending dangerous sexual behaviors to underage girls. These include whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation. Remember, the counselors in these videos believe that they are talking to a 15-year-old girl.”

“Whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation”—sounds something like what often occurs during a rape.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in USA Today, recently pointed out more liberal hypocrisy when it comes to rape. Terry Bean, the co-founder of the largest pro-homosexual advocacy organization in America, the Human Rights Campaign, was recently arrested and indicted on two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after allegedly having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online last year.

Bean is also co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and is a major donor to the National Democratic Committee and a major financial supporter of Democrats across the U.S., including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Bean has made multiple trips to the White House and has even been on Air Force One. In other words, on issues related to homosexuality, Bean has the ear of virtually every leader in the Democrat Party.

Rolling Stone, Lena Dunham, Planned Parenthood, and other such liberals to whom “the narrative” is the priority, can never be trusted to tell the whole story when it comes to matters as grave as rape. Worse, the sexual perversions that plague our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault, liberals are mourning a culture that they helped to create. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Dealing With a "Rape Culture"

Recently, in Time Magazine, feminist and Democratic advisor Zerlina Maxwell bemoaned the supposed “rape culture” that exists in the U.S. She did this while taking to task fellow Time essayist Caroline Kitchens for writing of “rape culture as a theory over-hyped by ‘hysterical’ feminists.” Reading each column, they both make some valid points, but both also fall far short of the truth when it comes to dealing with the tragic consequences of a culture obsessed with sex.

Maxwell suggests that a culture where men sexually violate women flourishes because there are no “great social consequences” for men who perpetrate such acts. Kitchens declares this nonsense and notes that “Rape is a horrific crime, and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced.” In addition, Kitchens downplays the role of “film, magazines, fashion,” and music such as Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” when it comes to creating a “rape culture.”

Maxwell and those like-minded want to pretend that the actions and behaviors of women play no role in whether they are victims of sexual assault. However, no one should be surprised that when a woman acts and dresses like a prostitute, there are immoral men who are all too willing to treat her as such. (This is especially the case when alcohol is involved.) Immorality breeds immorality.

Speaking of prostitutes, they are a tragic example of what often results when women use their bodies as a means to an end. Prostitutes are more likely than any other group of women ever studied to be, among many other terrible things, victims of rape and homicide. As noted in 2008 by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, “The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering.” According to a study by The American Journal of Epidemiology, the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women—working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34. The Journal concluded, “Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.”

Why are men more violent toward prostitutes? Because in prostitution, a woman’s humanity is removed. She becomes little more than a commodity to be consumed. Thus, a very unhealthy attitude toward women in general is fostered. Studies have shown that men who regularly use prostitutes are more likely to be sexually aggressive with women who are not prostitutes.

So what does this have to do with women in general? After all, the vast majority of women are not prostitutes. This may be the case in a literal sense. However, in the sex-saturated culture that exists in the U.S., there are many women and men who would never consider themselves prostitutes but who do nothing more than profit from selling their bodies.

In spite of Kitchens’ implications, this behavior has had tragically profound consequences for our culture. In our household we often refer to the Hollywood film sluts (whether big screen, TV, or music videos), those who grace the pages of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (and other such magazines), and those who parade down the runway of a Victoria Secrets “fashion” (read: sex) show, as "high-priced harlots." Thus those behind such productions (usually men) are little more than pimps eager to line their pockets.

Our media (internet, TV, magazines, billboards, and so on) is filled with these images. Even everyday commercials—for butter, milk, body spray, plumbing products, dusting spray—use sex to sell, both to men and women, boys and girls.

Decades of our children have been, and continue to be, brought up with such smut. For nearly three generations now we have had boys becoming men who have seen women portrayed like this (despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents) all of their lives. It is little wonder then, that, instead of marriage and family, they now seek “friends with benefits.”

As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, and in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered.

As my lovely wife recently noted, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.” (See her recent post on modesty here.)

It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end—which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children now being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is at least partly the sad result of growing up without a father.

Yet, instead of promoting (biblical) marriage, feminists like Maxwell advance education as the answer. She asks, “How about we teach young men when a woman says stop, they stop?” (Yeah, because they haven’t heard that one before!) And: “How about we teach young men that when a woman has too much to drink that they should not have sex with her, if for no other reason but to protect themselves from being accused of a crime?”

How about we teach young men (and women) of the value of marriage and family? How about we teach them of the dangers of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle? How about we teach men and women that, once they create a child, it is not okay to kill it in the womb? Maxwell and her cohorts are the chief cheerleaders for abortion in the U.S. As Mother Teresa taught us, abortion breeds violence: “Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.”

Also, how about we teach boys to be men, and girls to be women? According to family and feminism expert Suzanne Venker, many men have decided never to get married because “women aren’t women anymore.”

“Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically,” says Venker. She concludes that today’s women are “angry” and “defensive” because “they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

In other words, feminists like Maxwell are mourning a culture that they helped create, and, with their unwavering support of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and they like, are continuing to damage. Little will change until these efforts stop.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Answering Liberals "Gotcha" Questions

As much as the establishment GOP would like for the “social” (I prefer “moral”) issues to go away, liberals simply won’t allow it. Contrary to popular belief, lately it has been liberals on offense when it comes to making the moral issues into campaign issues. How ironic is it that, when jobs and the economy are overwhelmingly the leading issue in a political campaign, liberals insist on debating the moral issues. Contrary to GOP establishment beliefs, this is not a bad thing.

Conservative Christians are on the side of the truth when it comes to abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution, and so on. We simply need candidates who truly believe our positions and can intelligently articulate them. When debating the moral issues, too many GOP candidates are simply pandering. Other conservatives have their hearts in the right place, but they are unable to communicate effectively their positions when put on the spot by liberals—whether their opponent or the media.

If your heart and your mind are not in this debate, serious mistakes can (and will) be made (ask Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock). I can’t change anyone’s heart, but I can provide some mental ammunition when it comes to debating the moral issues.

Thus, as a public service to conservative Christians everywhere, but especially to those running for public office, this column is a primer for how to answer those “gotcha” questions that any candidate opposing a liberal will inevitably have to answer.

First of all, on the question of rape and abortion, as Mike Adams of Townhall.com points out, one should use significant caution when discussing such matters. Next, I would advise an approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a question of His own.

There are several such questions with which to respond when asked why one does not support abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape.  For example, almost certainly the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in the exception.  As Adams also points out, “[i]n order for there to be an exception to a rule banning abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases.”

Thus, one should ask them: If I agree to the rape exception, would you then agree to ban abortion in all other cases? Also point out that there are literally thousands of people alive today who were born as a result of a rape. (A good idea would be to name a specific example.) Ask if it would be acceptable to kill that person because of the circumstances of his or her conception.

Another good question, as I pointed out months ago, would be: Instead of killing the innocent child in the womb, why not execute the rapist? A follow up would be: Do liberals (or others) who support abortion in cases of rape also support the execution of rapists? Perhaps the best question would be, why compound one evil deed with another? Rape is a horrific evil, but so is the taking of an innocent life.

On the issue of marriage, conservatives are often asked if they support same-sex marriage (or more sinisterly, a loaded question such as “Do you support marriage equality?”). The conservative response should be “No,” immediately followed by, “How would you discriminate and define marriage?”

Most liberals want to define marriage as a union between any two consenting adults. Of course, this ignores polygamy, polyandry, and other variations of multiples marrying. The point is (as I pointed out months ago), any definition of marriage is “discriminatory;” it just comes down to whose definition you want to use.

It should also be pointed out that, once same-sex marriage has legal recognition and protection, businesses, schools, churches, and so on could then face legal consequences if they “discriminate” against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage supporters should have to answer whether they would support such legal actions.

Then there is the dreaded, “How old do you think the earth is?” question. Once such a question is asked, any conservative worth his weight should seriously consider ending the interview/debate right then and there.

This question is nothing more than a blatant attempt by liberals and their apologists to paint conservatives as “religious nuts” or “anti-science bumblers.” As Paul Krugman of the New York Times put it after Marco Rubio was asked about the age of the earth, “Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.”

Of course, what liberals are really trying to get at is whether their conservative target accepts Darwinian evolution (D.E.) as “the gospel” when it comes to how life began. Without billions of years, D.E. is as dead as a dinosaur fossil. This is why liberals are so committed to millions and billions of years. Thus, the conservative retort should aim to redirect back to D.E.

Use questions such as: do you really believe that humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor?  Do you believe that all life on earth came into being without a Creator? What does D.E. contribute to operational science today? (In other words, what is D.E., other than an attempt to explain our existence without a Creator?) If D.E. is so fundamental to science (as most evolutionists will claim), then why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and millions/billions of years and still operate perfectly well in any scientific field (including medicine)? And similarly, as Rubio put it, what does D.E. have to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States?

It would also be worth pointing out (as I did last year) that two of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler, both calculated the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Kepler calculated a creation date of 3992, and Newton firmly defended a creation date of about 4000 B.C.

The most important thing to remember when faced with difficult questions is that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and there is an Author of this truth. We will only get the right answers to the difficult questions when we allow ourselves to be guided by His wisdom. As Newton put it, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Liberals and the Politicization of Rape

Liberals love to talk about rape—at least those who are apologists for the abortion industry do. When GOP Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin did his best Joe Biden impression and inserted both feet into his mouth over abortion, “legitimate rape,” and the shutting down of the female body, liberals across the U.S. were falling all over themselves to paint republicans as heartless Neanderthals and further the “war on women” narrative.

The democrats have now gone so far as to turn the Democrat National Convention into an “abortion-palooza,” as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air puts it. The lib love-fest will feature such speakers as Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student who spoke before Congress in favor of federal funding for birth control.

Liberals claim that Akin’s words were demeaning to rape victims, yet for decades they have shamelessly used rape as a political tool to further their pro-abortion agenda. Of course, like-minded members of the mainstream media have been all too willing to help out. GOP candidates such as Todd Akin are often asked something like the following: “If a woman was brutally raped and would be emotionally traumatized by carrying to term, would you allow her to have an abortion, or would you force her to have the child?”

Few fumble the answer as badly as Akin did, but many conservatives struggle for the appropriate reply. It is not a difficult answer, if one has true convictions. In fact, there are multiple ways to respond.

One good reply would be to answer the question with a question. (This was a tactic that Christ, Himself, often used.) For example: Instead of killing the innocent child in the womb, why not execute the rapist? A follow up would be: Do liberals (or others) who support abortion in cases of rape also support the execution of rapists?

Another retort in the form of a question could be: Why compound one evil deed with another? Rape is a horrific evil, but so is the taking of an innocent life. Liberals act as if an abortion is like getting a tooth pulled. One of the great lies of the pro-abortion lobby is that there are no consequences to having an abortion. The truth is that, just as with rape, for many, an abortion is a very traumatic experience.

In fact, a woman who would be “emotionally traumatized” by carrying to term a child conceived in rape would almost certainly be “emotionally traumatized” by killing it. It is a devastating thing to know that one has been responsible for ending a life—especially the life of one’s own child.

Of course, another great lie of the abortion industry is that the fetus is not really a living human being. Life in the womb for a baby is as well documented as anything in science. (Isn’t it ironic that liberals love to tout themselves as rational champions of science, yet they ignore science in the abortion debate?) With ultrasound and doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near conception until birth. With the new (4-D) ultrasound machines, one can see with amazing clarity the baby in the womb. Babies can be seen grasping things, sucking their thumbs, and responding to stimuli.

At around week 8 of a pregnancy, which is shortly after most women even realize that they are pregnant, a baby can be seen on ultrasound. By then, every organ is in place and bones are forming. One can see and hear their little hearts beat at around 150 beats per minute, pumping its own blood, which is often a different type than the mother’s. By weeks 9 and 10, teeth begin to form, fingernails develop, and the baby can turn its head.

At week 12, nearing the end of the first trimester, the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand. In addition, all organ systems are functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation. Also, all of the parts necessary to experience pain are present, including the nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.

In spite of all this, the pro-abortion cry is still “it’s the woman’s body; she can do what she wants with it!” As I have demonstrated, abortion is far from this simple.

The bottom line is that rape is not a moral justification for abortion. There is no shame in this position. As Christian apologist Greg Koukl puts it, “If the unborn child is not a living person, then no excuse for abortion is necessary. If it is, then no excuse for abortion is adequate.” Nothing good is accomplished from creating another victim in the terrible case of rape. As cliché as it sounds, abortion truly does stop a beating heart.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com