QUICK LINKS
American Idol: Christian and Pro-Life
After taking criticism for giving to anti-poverty programs in Africa that actually promotes abortion in third world nations, American Idol has seen some redemption.
The show has produced a new, true winner in Jordan Sparks.
She is a longtime pro-live advocate and has participated in a number of pro-life conferences both as a volunteer and a singer.
Appearing on Fox and Friends last week, Brian Kilmeade asked her questions based on emails they had received from viewers. One of the questions was about a ring she wears on her wedding ring finger even though she is 17 years old and unmarried.
Without hesitation she explained that it was her Purity Ring and that it says she is waiting until she is married and is saving herself for that man.
The internet has been full of talk that a photo had appeared on Spark’s myspace.com page of her holding a sign from National Right to Life which said, “STOP ABORTION NOW.”
She has performed with Michael W. Smith and in 2004 she won the Gospel Music Association Spotlight Award.
So America has chosen a teenager who believes in and practices abstinence and is an outspoken pro-life advocate to be the newest American Idol.
How refreshing.
_____________________
The show has produced a new, true winner in Jordan Sparks.
She is a longtime pro-live advocate and has participated in a number of pro-life conferences both as a volunteer and a singer.
Appearing on Fox and Friends last week, Brian Kilmeade asked her questions based on emails they had received from viewers. One of the questions was about a ring she wears on her wedding ring finger even though she is 17 years old and unmarried.
Without hesitation she explained that it was her Purity Ring and that it says she is waiting until she is married and is saving herself for that man.
The internet has been full of talk that a photo had appeared on Spark’s myspace.com page of her holding a sign from National Right to Life which said, “STOP ABORTION NOW.”She has performed with Michael W. Smith and in 2004 she won the Gospel Music Association Spotlight Award.
So America has chosen a teenager who believes in and practices abstinence and is an outspoken pro-life advocate to be the newest American Idol.
How refreshing.
_____________________
31 Comments:
Praise God!
I can almost hear the joy in heaven for this youngster who lives her faith!
Wouldn't this be a better world if everyone else did.
This post has been removed by the author.
I'm curious... You said "Jordin never made her anti-choice views known to the general public while competing on American Idol", then later said "I know I voted for her despite disagreeing with her anti-choice views," implying that somehow, you knew of her anti-baby-killing views (not "anti-choice") before you voted... Did you have some secret inside knowledge of her before you voted? Are you NOT part of the general public, or are you just making stuff up.
On another note, your use of the word "extremist" is laughable. Who'd say the idea of NOT killing a baby is "extremist." My answer: Probably some young teenage boy who's having sex (or at least wanting to) and doesn't want to worry about the responsibility of raising a child that might be produced by his and/or his girlfriend's irresponsible behavior... The same kind of kid who doesn't know the difference between "one" and "won".
Dan
J.C. You answered your own question.You say you voted for her in spite of her anti- choice views.
You knew, you voted for her anyway.
And how do you know what Gary thinks and assumnes? You don't know him. You only know what he believes and you hate that, therefore you hate him. That is true lefty secularism.
I didn't see Gary or any other Christian leaders promoting her because of what she believes. He only mentioned it after the fact.
jc Britney Spears did make some personal claims. But so did Bill Clinton.
We voted for Jordin as well. Again, all based on singing talent, certainly not political views. She's an extremely talented young woman.
Political views can be a large part of determining an artist's fan base. I guess it'll be interesting to see what (if any) affect this has on her's.
Are there any really successful pop or rock artists who make Christianity a big part of their persona? I'm talking about mainstream sucess, not just on Christian radio.
Mike
This post has been removed by the author.
Okay Jordan is anti-choice. And this proves . . . ?
This post has been removed by the author.
Amazing! *is in awe* Praise the Lord!
Personally, whether she won by her God-given talent does not diminish my excitement over this. Because if she is in fact truly dedicated to Christ, and lives her life to please Him, everything she does will say that. That she loves the Lord, has found hope and peace in Him, and that He is worth living for.
May America find themselves drawn to purity and holiness! May America turn from darkness and to the Lord. May young people like this (and older alike) shine as lights in a corrupt and perverse generation. Because the Lord is a GOOD God. A just King. And in His presence is fullness of Joy. Let all the earth praise Him; melodies rising from every heart in adoration. In Jesus' name, Amen.
"Are there any really successful pop or rock artists who make Christianity a big part of their persona? I'm talking about mainstream sucess, not just on Christian radio."
Not likely. It would seem to me that most Christians would not be all that drawn to a lifestyle of mega-attention and the corruption that tends to come with it...
Regarding your comment:
-----
Gary makes it sound as if Jordin where the anti-choice candidate for American Idol.
-----
I think what he was getting at is it's nice to see someone in the public eye and/or pop-culture that isn't seemingly morally corrupt and leaning to the far left like most singers/actors tend to be.
Honestly, I've never heard of Jordin before today, as I rarely waste my time on things like American Idol. As if watching American Idol isn't enough of a time waste, why not spend some time reading blogs about American Idol? ;-) It's good to know when people are focused on the important things in life. ;-)
Sorry about the cheap grammar shot, but you know, what the heck is wrong with people proof reading what they post at least once before hitting the submit button. If you had made the mistake just once, I would have assumed it was just a typo or you were in a hurry, but when it happens twice in the same post, you start to wonder who you're dealing with and if they're actually putting any time or thought into their posts. If you ask me, things like that reflect poorly on a person, whether they try to use the "it's the web... who cares" excuse or not.
As for whom you really are, actually, it would make me feel a little better to think you're a straight teenager (who hopefully can't vote yet), then a 40 year old gay guy with nothing better to do than support abortion advocates in between American Idol episodes.
Is there a reason you support abortion, other than the fact that it fits with the "let people do whatever they want, even if it’s immoral" agenda that the homosexual rights activists push so fervently?
By the way, what do you think about me trying to force my narrow view that people shouldn't murder or steal? Aren't murder and stealing moral judgments? I bet I'm quite the extremist in your book, aren't I?
Dan
This post has been removed by the author.
That is truly wonderful! I am so glad to hear about the "Purity Ring" getting on the news!
Fine, JC, get back to discussion... Here's something to start it off:
"What do you think about me trying to force my narrow view that people shouldn't murder or steal? Aren't murder and stealing moral judgments?"
Dan
This post has been removed by the author.
And on what basis did you decide a baby in a mother's womb is not a person yet?
What defines a person?
When does the baby become a person? When there's brain activity? When it's heart first beats? When it kicks you from the inside? When it takes it's first breath of air? The first time you have to change its diaper?
Dan
This post has been removed by the author.
No, this is a discussion. I'm just trying to ask questions to understand where you're coming from on the issue. But you seem to want to avoid answering them and charge me with interrogating, instead of discussing.
On what basis did I decide it was a person? Well, I think we can both agree that when it comes out crying, it's a person by that time, so what if we backup the time frame... How about 5 minutes before it comes out? A week before it comes out? I'd have to ask at what point is it NOT a person? My faith would tell me it's a person as soon as it's conceived, but, if I put that aside and go strictly from a medical point of view, and I keep backing up the time... A week before birth... A month... 3 months... I can't really think of a time that it's not a person.
The first definition of "person" in the dictionary is "A living human being". "Human being" has a definition of "A member of the genus Homo and esp. of the species 'Homo sapiens'." I can’t think of a time when a fetus does not fall into that category.
If I wanted to take the most liberal interpretation I could think of for when a fetus is a "person" it would be when the heart starts to beat (the main measure by which we judge other people to be alive or dead), and that would be about 5 weeks into the pregnancy, prior to which most women wouldn't even know they're pregnant.
So, if I try to appeal to logic, science, and/or faith, they all point to, at a minimum, that an unborn baby is a person well before most women would even know they're pregnant, let alone think about having an abortion.
How about you?
Dan
This post has been removed by the author.
jc, First, you really DO care about this blog and what people think of you. Don't kid me. Whatever your pain is from, it is real and does need to be taken to God through Jesus so you can heal that great pain. There really is no other answer. It does take humility and that is one big hurdle! He is the only one who does understand your pain. To keep it in a festering state is very sad and doesn't have to be. Life is too short!
Second, please read Psalms 139 to see when a person becomes a person! If you just look at life from the clinical point of view, you will miss many great awarenesses regarding life!
Quote:
”I believe that one obtains full personhood at birth. I can see the reasoning behind some restrictions on abortion from the point of fetal viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive outside its mother's uterus. I believe this occurs sometime around the end of the second trimester of pregnancy.”
So, “personhood” is something that’s granted, based on when you exit the womb? So, if I wanted to make a baby become a person sooner, I could schedule a C-section or induce labor a week early and they’d magically be a person a week sooner?
When you say viability, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean it won’t die instantly without life support? What if a baby is born premature and is in an incubator for a few weeks because it can’t live without it? Is that non-viable? In that case, is it not a person until it can live and breath on its own even though it has been born (and would thus have achieved “personhood” based on your previous definition)? You said “”the ability of the fetus to survive outside its mother’s uterus,” but is that with, or without, any aid. Because if you say “without aid,” then wouldn’t we consider breast feeding (or even bottle feeding) as “aid?” Is viability the “ability of a baby to basically make it on it’s own without any assistance to its physical needs?” If so, I’d have to say that babies probably aren’t “viable” until probably about 4 years old, at best. ;-) What about if a baby was born with a birth defect, had very poorly functioning lungs, and had to be on a breathing machine for the rest of its life (unless they could do a lung transplant or something)? Would that baby never be a person, since it was doing fine in the womb, but can’t survive without assistance outside the womb? Is there really any big difference between what a woman is doing for her baby when it’s inside the womb Vs. outside the womb other than the hole it’s fed through and the “blanket” it’s kept warm by? (Either way, you have to keep a baby nourished, warm, safe, etc). Sure, it may seem like I’m asking a lot of questions, but the fact is, if you try to define a baby being a person based on if their “viable,” then it’s really just an arbitrarily chosen way of defining what a person is to support a world view, and there’s a lot of holes in that line of thinking.
Quote:
”You say birth starts at conception. How are you defining conception? Are you using the medical definition (the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of the uterine wall), or the common anti-choice definition (which is medically referred to as fertilization)? This distinction is important because this misdefinition of the word is what forms the basis of anti-choice claims that hormonal birth control causes abortions.”
Sorry for the vagueness in using the term “conception,” which itself is a vague term. My understanding of the term “conception” is the that it’s basically the formation of a zygote, which is basically the single fertilized cell which has both parents chromosomes, but has not yet split in half. So from a medical point of view, conception would be just moments after fertilization. I think technically, the order might be something like this: Sperm enters egg, egg walls harden to prevent other sperm from entering, the chromosomes do their alignment thing, which means we now have a zygote, which means life has been conceived (i.e. conception). As far as I know, whether conception has anything to do with attaching to the uterine wall or not (or a fallopian tube, in the case of a tubule pregnancy), I’m not sure, but I’m not sure the anti-life people have it defined correctly either, so I won’t argue about it for now.
Quote:
”As for the definition of person, American Heritage is alone amoung the various dictionaries in including the "living" requirement.
Okay, so all that establishes is that someone who is dead can also be considered a person. So a “person” can be someone who is living or dead, but not a fetus? I don’t see where this line of logic is heading. ;-)
Quote:
”I would say the definition best used in the context of this philosophical discussion is #4 below. … 4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being. … Clearly a fetus is niether self-conscious or rational.”
Couple thoughts here…
-So, now were switching from medical definitions to philosophical definitions because it fits your world view better? What’s wrong with the first definition “a human being, whether man, woman, or child”?
-Regarding the philosophical definition, on what basis can you say a fetus is not self-conscious? Perhaps they are conscious of little more than themselves and their own needs. If they’re not self-conscious in the womb, when do they become self-conscious? Maybe ages 3-5? By your definition, they’re not a person until then?
-By what logic are babies not rational? They may not have a very wide knowledge base to draw upon, but who’s to say they’re not rational? Okay… For the sake of your argument, let’s say they’re not rational. By that logic, once again, a baby might not be considered a person until they’re a few years old, unless of course, they all of a sudden become rational the moment the leave the womb. I suppose if we use rational as a way to define a person, then a mentally ill person must be a mentally ill entity, since they wouldn’t qualify for “personhood” because of their lack of rational thought.
Quote:
”I can't help but notice that in your discussion of this topic, the woman, in whose uterus the fetus resides is treated as little more than a container. Where do her rights to control her own body come into consideration?”
Well, I can’t help but notice in your discussion of the topic, that the baby is nothing more then a lump of cells, like a cancer is someone’s body. That lump of cells that you’re okay with aborting just might have grown up to be one of the women you seem so concerned about protecting. ;-)
Let’s look at some statistics:
According to American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/04/b615981.html), there are about 9100 abortions performed each year due to forced sexual intercourse. Using a reasonably conservative figure, the US averages about 1.2 Million abortions a year (according to planned parenthood), so even with this conservative figure, that’s less than 1% of abortions are due to rape. Browsing around, the highest estimate I could find was 3% of abortions being due to rape and 5% due to incest or possible medical issues that might endanger the life of the mother. So, if we add up the highest figures I can find, we come up with about 8% of abortions being due incest, rape, and/or medical concerns.
What does that all mean? It means, conservatively, ~92% of abortions are pretty much for convenience. Perhaps if we all grew up with a little better moral foundation, the 92% of women who are getting convenience abortions wouldn’t treat their bodies like containers for a man’s… Anyway, if you want to ask about the woman’s right to control her own body, then why not suggest they either control their own body BEFORE they get pregnant or take responsibility for their own actions (and the life they created) after the get pregnant.
Here’s a scenario for you: Let’s say I having a nice little camp fire in my back yard… I’m not a very careful or responsible person, so I’m not too worried about how “hot the fire gets” (yes, that’s a little allusion to what I’m really getting at, hehe). Now I let that fire get out of control and it burns the neighbor’s house down. What does the responsible person do? He/she works to make things right as best they can and takes responsibility for his/her actions. That’s not what an anti-life person would say… They’s say “well, since you made a mistake and burned down the neighbor’s house, you better kill the neighbor, so he doesn’t sue you and ruin you financially.” Wouldn’t it be a good idea to teach people (especially children and young adults) be careful when they’re playing with fire and that they need to take responsibility for their own actions, so they don’t get burned?
Quote:
”What about rape and incest? Where do you stand on forcing a woman to bear the child of her assailant or molester?”
You know, I could concede to you that MAYBE, in a certain way, it could ALMOST be acceptable from a strictly humanistic point of view that abortion would be okay for abortions to be legal in the case of rape, incest, and maybe health concerns for the mother (recall: this is less than 8% of abortions). But, while I could concede that point from a legal point of view, my faith would still tell me that it would be wrong (but I’m not here to force my faith on others), so if you wanted to make the case that abortions would be legal for women who were raped, I might not put up a huge fight, but for the other ~1.19 Million abortions per year in the US, I’d have to disagree. I believe that if a Christian woman was raped, and she held to her conviction that abortion was wrong and kept the child or even gave it up for adoption, then God would honor that conviction, but that’s just my personal view and I can separate that from what I think the minimum acceptable standards of ethics and morality for society should be.
Speaking of which, in an earlier post, you replied to me, saying:
Quote:
”Murder and theft inringe on the rights of other people.”
To which I might reply: “So what?” What makes it wrong to infringe on other people’s rights? Where did they get these rights anyway? You’re not talking about those “certain inalienable right” that were “endowed by their Creator” are you? If so, then yeah, I’d agree, but if you DON’T believe in a Creator, and I suspect you don’t, based on your view on abortion (of course I could be wrong), then I don’t see what’s wrong with murder or theft, other than the fact that you might not like them if they happen to you. If we’re all here because of some random accidental spark of life, then there really aren’t any unquestionable rights like you speak of; Survival of the fittest rules. If a person can kill another and take their stuff, then they win. Sure, we can make “rules” that say you can’t kill, or go with “majority rules” and say “if you kill someone, we’ll kill you,” but you can’t say that killing is innately wrong. With evolution, killing and/or death is just the process of getting rid of the weak.
So, if you’re going to argue that murder and theft are somehow “just plain wrong,” then how is having over 1.1 million babies killed for convenience per year in the US alone not “just plain wrong?” If that’s debatable, it certainly seems logical that theft being “just plain wrong” is also debatable.
Anyway, enough for now. I better give you a chance to reply before I write any more… You’ve got a lot of points to cover, and I’m eager to hear your take on them, since this has turned into an interesting discussion. ;-)
Dan
P.S. As a side note, I know you're gay, so I'm not sure how this might apply to you, but my wife was reading these posts and she was curious how you'd feel in this [unlikely] scenario:
If by some strange twist of fate, you accidently (or intentionally) slept with a woman and unknowningly got her pregnant, then later found out she had an abortion (i.e. your child was aborted), how would you feel?
Dan (on behalf of his wife's curiosity).
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
jc, your remarks really just show how far YOU are removed from reality!
Why cannot an athiest educate himself about the world he lives in? Are you afraid of what you might learn? Your rebellion is reeeeeeekkkking!
Also, your continual reference to people (others besides me) as "Little Miss Courage" is extremely condensending of you and says more about your disrespect of anybody who does not enspouse your faith in nothing! Oh, little man that you represent. How sad. "Me thinkest thou doth protest to much!"
Since you refuse to look up Psalms 139 for yourself because you are afraid or too lazy, I will put the pertinent information in this blog:
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body..
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
Try another piece of information from Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
These are not idle words of some fanatic; but, words from the living God! You can rebel all you want to, that does not make his reality not true! His eye is on you as it is on the sparrow! No "magic" involved, fellow human, simply truth. Guess who "invented" science!? If you don't open yourself to truth "today", reality will hit you as a ton of bricks! It will be too late then.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I don’t have a lot of time to write right now, so I’ll try to keep it short, and write more later (might not have time until tomorrow).
Quote:
”Nice novel you wrote there.”
Thank you. :-)
Quote:
"I see we are back to interrogation, your questions outnumber statements by more than 3 to 1."
Not sure where you’re getting your facts, but I did a quick analysis of my post and the actual ratio not 3 to 1, it’s actually 1q to 1.5s (or 2 question to every 3 statements, if you prefer whole numbers). Maybe you should be less concerned with how many question I ask and more concerned about how they might reasonably be answered.
The problem here is that you seem afraid to answer questions. You only want to make statements and for the most part your replies to me mostly addressed statements I made, but you didn’t answer any questions. Ask me a question, I’ll give you an answer. Asking questions, FYI, is not an invalid form of discussion. It’s part of learning what the other person thinks about something. In this case, I believe you feel interrogated because you don’t have answers to the questions and/or if you answer them with the obvious/logical answer, it might invalidate your world view.
Quote:
"Birth is no more a capricious defining point for life than your misrepresentation of conception."
Please tell me how I’ve misrepresented conception and what your reference is that proves I’m off in my understanding of what conception is. Use a medical reference if you like, but I’m pretty sure I’ve represented it as accurately as I can, but I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, so please back up this statement with facts.
Quote:
""the baby is nothing more then a lump of cells": Funny, I never said that."
Nor did I say that a woman is merely a container. You stated what you thought my statement IMPLIED (which may be somewhat accurate, since at the time, I hadn’t yet addressed the woman and/or her rights), and I stated what I thought you implied. Was I wrong? Do you believe a recently conceived child is any MORE than a lumb of cels?
Quote:
"Yes, it could also be the next Hitler, or Bin Laden, imagine the lives saved by aborting either of those two,"
Probability of being the next Hitler or Bin Laden:
~0.0000000003% (2 in 6.5 Billion)
Probability of being a woman:
~50% (1 in 2)
That’s all the time I have for now. Will post again later.
Dan
This post has been removed by the author.
Andrew
Would you wonder why Irish famous Irishmen are listed on a Plaque at Notre Dame , or wonder why gay activists list famous gays of people who have made contributions to society on a poster ?
Why then would you wonder why pointing out a famous person who shares our same Christian Faith be of any wonder .
Obvious this idol show is big hooey . I am a movie buff myself , so I am not into it . But wtaching movies of famous people who share my Faith who have done great things for society is good to know , just normal human nature . Whats your problem ?
Post a Comment
<< Home